As a part of the tourism policy of the State Government, the petitioner was offered certain incentives in the nature of entertainment tax waiver. Upon introduction of Goods & Services Tax (“GST” for short), the entertainment tax was subsumed. The GST currently prescribed is @ 18%.
Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) HC observed that we are at a loss to understand as to why the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not communicated to the petitioner regarding fixing a specific date of hearing of a Miscellaneous Application invoking Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this […]
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs. JDIT (Bombay High Court) The Department in the Assessment Order expressly refers to this Court’s earlier order in the petitioner’s Writ Petition No.721 of 1988. Still it makes no order of refund. If this is an erroneous order and the Department failed to rectify it, then, the petitioner’s remedy was to […]
ITAT came to a finding that Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not a concern which could be included in the list of comparable companies. We do not think that these findings of fact are in any way perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record which, in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law.
Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) (Bombay High Court) While disposing of these Petitions with the above clarifications, we may note that these Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members […]
Validity of Reassessment Notice under section 148-Where approval of Addl. CIT was not obtained to reopen the assessment, rather it was obtained from CIT, the same was in breach of section 151.
Shafi Khan Khokhar Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court) High Court upholds jurisdiction of Mumbai CGST Commissionerate even in case where parallel proceedings were commenced in Jaipur Facts: During the period of dispute, the assessee, an individual, was subjected to enquiry proceedings under CGST Act, initiated by the Commissionerate at Mumbai. He […]
Bombay High Court has held that it was within the discretion of the assessee whether to utilize Cenvat credit at one of its unit or distribute it amongst other units providing output The High Court however dismissed appeal observing that the entire exercise was revenue neutral as distribution of Cenvat credit to various units would result in lesser service tax being paid by them.
Bombay High Court has held that time consumed by the concerned Ministry in granting certificates required for retrospective exemption and refund must be ignored.
Goods in question were never received by the assessee in its factory and therefore, the assessee’s claim of having consumed the same was not genuine.
