Commissioner of Customs Vs S.S. Offshore Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) A right of an appeal has to be bestowed by a statute and no person can claim it as of a right, de hors the statute. However having found that there is a right of appeal conferred from the orders of the Commissioner of […]
M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) It is evident that in the facts of the present case the contract was clearly one for supply and erection of equipment, supply of equipment being dominant purpose. No doubt the State of Maharashtra had enacted the Maharashtra Sales Tax on “Transfer” of […]
The Bombay High Court while allowing a reference application in favour of the Revenue, held that voluntary disclosure in all cases cannot absolve the assessee from penal liabilities under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
judgment of the Supreme Court in Cochin Port Trust holds the field. We are accordingly of the view that the Port Trust falls within the definition of dealer and is liable to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1954.
Pr CIT Vs Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Once the Assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case. In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who […]
Provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 18, 38, 59, 60, 61, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively. These provisions, therefore, cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20(1) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
It was held that petition shall not be entertained with the observation that since the Government machinery was geared up, the petitioner could not urge or seek directions to postpone the decision of implementation from 01.07.2017.
Once the assessee is a beneficiary of the amount received as a consequence of the transfer executed by her husband, of which she had no knowledge, she offered that during the course of the assessment proceedings, that does not mean that her act can be brought within the penalty provision.
Where AO passed order of reassessment under section 147, even when Revenue processed return of assessee under section 143(1)(i) by intimation, the impugned assessment order deserved to be quashed, as the AO could not proceed with extraordinary power under section 147, when normal procedure of assessment of income under section 143(3) was available.
The petitioner had questioned and challenged the validity of office order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Secretary, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as Maha RERA for short). In the impugned order the Maha RERA observed that since the term ‘Co promoter’ is not defined in the Act,Rules or Regulations, it […]
