CIT Vs Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The Bombay High Court allowed the deduction on interest paid on the amount borrowed for the purpose of machinery even if machinery is not actually used in business. The revenue has raised the issue Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in […]
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Petitioner had in its annual report mentioned about the technical know how fee, royalty and technical assistance fee that it had paid to Skoda Auto a.s. and Volks Wagen AG. Petitioner had also filed Form 3CEB in which it had disclosed about details and […]
Any statement recorded prior to the issuance of such show-cause notice is not a statement recorded in the course of an inquiry or proceeding and no right accrues in favour of a noticee to insist that he be offered for cross-examination the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded.
Golden Tobacco Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (Bombay High Court) In the fact situation of the present case, it appears that a notice under Section 142(1) of said Act along with questionnaire was issued on 23/12/2020 and 26/03/2021. The draft Assessment Order was prepared based on information furnished by the assessee to the said […]
Advent India PE Advisors Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) Having regard to the statutory mandate in sub-rule (3) of rule 86A, the petitioner is entitled to claim that the input tax credit ought to have been unblocked immediately after one year of the restriction being imposed under sub-rule (1) […]
Ashok Kumar Meher Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax & GST (Orissa High Court) HC held that The plea of technical difficulties or technical glitches will not come in the way of the above order being given effect to. For this purpose a direction is issued to GSTN to either modify or make changes in the […]
Water Resources Development Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Bombay High Court) When the material on record is perused it becomes clear that in the reply to the show cause notice itself the appellant had stated that in view of exemption Notification No.74/1993 which was applicable to it till 31.3.1996, the appellant was not aware of […]
Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Bombay High Court) Bombay high court in income tax matter in case of SIDBI vs CBDT … Explaining at length operative impact of non obstante clause A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part […]
Bombay HC’s stern remarks on casual approach by Revenue in Amrutlal V. Rukhana Vs. Rao Ranvijay Singh, CIT. Lack of assistance results in loss of public money.
That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner’s case and after going through the facts of the Petitioner’s case hold and declare that impugned circular no. 125/44/201-GST dated 18.11.2019 in so far as it creates a condition that the refund application has to be filed online only as being wholly beyond the parent provisions (i.e. Section 54, section 16 and section 168(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017) and hence, ultra vires the Act;
