Court directs that on the deposit of 15% of the total tax liability within a period of 15 days from today, the first appellate authority shall hear and decide the appeal in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties, within a period of next one month.
A person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
The provision of Section 142 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be considered to be effective with retrospective effect.
Allahabad High Court held that rejection of claim of input tax credit on cryptic findings cannot be sustained. Accordingly, matter remanded to first Appellate Authority to record specific finding.
Considering the provision of Section 68 that the assessee has to prove three conditions i.e. (i) identity of the creditor; (2) capacity of such creditor to advance money; and (iii) genuineness of the transactions. If all the aforesaid three conditions are proved, the burden shifts on the revenue to prove that the amount belong to the assessee. However, the assessee cannot be asked to prove source of source or the origin of origin.
Umesh Kumar Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court) The purpose of inserting the provision under Rule 23 of GST Rules, 2017 as to service of notice upon the assessee is to provide an opportunity to him to move a revocation application so as to save the registration from being cancelled permanently […]
Allahabad High Court held that High Courts order directed quashing of notice and consequential order. However, the outstanding amount on web portal continued for a period of 7 months. It clearly shows act and action of the opposite party is deliberate in nature. Hence, contemnor – opposite parity i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax penalized with fine and simple imprisonment for one week.
Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application as 482 applications filed by other co-accused have already been rejected. Further, the said application is also rejection in absence of merit and substance.
Allahabad High Court held that in absence of a valid marriage, marriage certificate of Arya Samaj is not proof of a valid marriage. Accordingly, mere getting a marriage certificate from Arya Samaj is not proof of a valid marriage.
Allahabad High Court held that costume used in the water park would neither fall within the definition of words ‘instrument’ or ‘contrivance’ hence renting on ‘costumes’ cannot be included in the term ‘payment for admission’ as defined under Section 2(l)(iii) of The Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 and not subject to entertainment tax.
