Parag Kishorchandra Shah Vs The National Faceless Assessment Center & Ors. (Bombay High Court) HC held direction needs to be issued to the Assessing Officer to pay costs to bring judicious approach amongst Assessing Officers for effective implementation of faceless assessment in its letter and spirit. The Assessing Officer should have been aware of the […]
The petitioner is deprived from getting foodgrains from the public distribution system simply because Aadhar card is not linked with the system. As per Government circular dated 13th October 2016, for receiving benefits of public distribution system, it is pre-requisite that Aadhaar card of each member of the family, who is entitled in the ration card, must be linked in the RCMS system/ portal.
Meta Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Hon’ble Bombay High Court issues notice in challenge to Constitutional validity of 16(4) of the CGST Act In terms of section 16(4) of the Central GST Act and Maharashtra GST Act, a taxpayer is not entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any […]
From a conjoint reading of Section 2(1)(j)(A), Section 2(1)(o)(i), Section 3, Section 5 and Section 6 of the DTVSV Act, it is clear that there is no provision in the DTVSV Act, which authorises recovery of interest paid earlier by the Department under Section 244A as disputed tax, there being no statutory mandate for the Designated Authority to recover interest as disputed tax in the manner sought to be done in this case.
The plea by assessee to quash Enforcement Directorate summons in a money laundering case was quashed as assessee had failed to make out a case for interference for the invocation of 226 of the Constitution and 482 of Cr.P.C.
ADIA files ROI in India disclosing income falling within the scope of section 5(2). However, in view of exemption available in terms of India-UAE DTAA, ADIA reports NIL taxable income. AAR denies the benefit of India-UAE DTAA benefit to ADIA in respect of income accruing on the investment made or proposed to be made by Green Maiden A 2013 Trust which was established by ADIA and ETL.
Assessment was sought to be reopened not on account of failure of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income but on account of change of opinion of AO about the manner of computation of the deduction under Section 57, therefore, the same was invalid.
With respect to seized goods, there was neither any notice under clause (a) of Section 124 issued to assessee within six months of the seizure nor had the period of six months been extended for a further period of six months, therefore, in the absence of there being any notice as required by the first proviso even within the extended period upto one year, the consequence that ought to follow was release of the seized consignments.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs Invesco Developing Markets Fund (Bombay High Court) Facts- Two institutional investors issued the requisition notice to Zee Entertainment. A suit is filed by Zee Entertainment against the demand of two institutional investors seeking extraordinary general meeting. Zee Entertainment has filed a suit arguing that the requisition notice send by the […]
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) SCN quashed by Bombay HC for allegedly availing inadmissible transitional credit as has been issued on an erroneous legal premise The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of […]
