Held that an independent director, not in charge or not responsible for day to day conduct of the business, is not liable for offence by invoking section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Petitioner challenged rejection of declaration filed under ‘Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019’ by passing a very cryptic order without spelling out reason
PCIT Vs Kumar Builders Consortium (Bombay High Court) Revenue argued that Section 80IB(10), does not at all envisage a pro rata deduction, in respect of eligible fats. In other words, it is suggested that even if a single flat in a housing project is found to exceed the permissible maximum built-up area of 1500 sq.ft., […]
Accepting the statement of the assessee that the addition be restricted to only profit element on the purchases efected by it, the CIT(A), restricted the addition by estimating profit of 12.5% on the total purchases in question.
Revenue can set off/adjust amount to be refunded against the sum which remains payable under Income Tax Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing
Held that services are supplied to Foreign Telecom Operators and hence place of supply of service will be location of service receiver as per section 13(2). Provisions of section 13(3)(b) are not attracted as the services are not provided to the individual.
Bombay High Court held that importers who fall under Notification No. 27/02-Cus dated 1st March 2002 are not entitled to any drawback under Section 74 of Customs Act 1962.
The show cause notice does not even allege that petitioner has obtained registration by fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. There is a digital signature appended in the said document which says signature is not verified. Therefore, we have to take it to be an unsigned document. We fail to understand how it can be an official document.
HC held that We fail to understand, prima facie, as to how the authorities get this power to take away amount from anybody’s account without account holder’s permission or even after taking away the money, they would not even consider it necessary to inform the account-holder that money from their account has been debited. This is nothing but high handedness and gross abuse of power.
Held that the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact amendment to incorporate a condition/modifying the earlier condition for entertaining an appeal for a mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016
