ITAT held that transfer of PAN is consequential to Order of transfer of jurisdiction & that it is a PAN, which follows jurisdiction & not vice versa
Prosecution case is that applicant was ITO & demanded Rs.1 lakkh as bribe from partners of Brightera Builders for favourable assessment order
ABB India Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Petitioner is a manufacturer of circuit breakers and switch gears of high voltage. The Petitioner exported the goods under ten shipping bills dated 21 January 2008, 5 February 2008, 12 February 2008, 4 March 2008, 11 March 2008, 11 June, 2008, 5 June, 2008, […]
HC held that Tribunal, therefore, correctly restricted the additions limited to the extent of bringing G.P. rate on bogus purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases.
Bombay High Court held that the clause contained in the invoices which clearly stipulate a reference to arbitration, deserve to be construed as an arbitration clause as parties duly acted upon the invoice. Accordingly, clause squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 127H of the Act of 1962 confers power on the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty. Section 127H(1) as it read prior to 1 June 2007 empowered the Settlement Commission, upon satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the provisions, to grant immunity either wholly or in part from the imposition of any penalty, fine and interest.
Bombay HC sets aside Recovery Notice imposing Interest on Gross GST Tax Liability without giving an opportunity of being heard to Appellant
Bombay High Court held that suo moto order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court directing exclusion of period 15th March 2020 to 28th February 2022 due to Covid outbreak is applicable even in case of filing of refund application.
Bombay High Court held that conversion of limited enquiry of classification of goods in respect of Advance Rulings into an appellate enquiry is not permissible to be undertaken in writ jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court held that exercise of power under Article 226 untenable as remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal available to the petitioner challenging forfeiture of earnest money deposit.
