Reopening of the assessment was questioned by the petitioner. The principal reason for reopening was advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by the petitioner was not deductible in view of section 37, as petitioner was prohibited from advertising under the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
River Valley Meadows and Township (P) Limited Vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings where reason approved one day after issue of notice u/s 148 In the present case, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued for the A.Y. 2015-16 by the Jurisdictional assessing officer on […]
Premprakash Bansal Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending arrest in Crime No. 0178 of 2021 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406 and 34 of the I.P.C, Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail. 3. On 10th August, 2021, this Court declined […]
Unifab Engineering Project Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner CGST And CEX (Bombay High Court) 1. A show cause-cum-demand notice dated July 29, 2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner CGST & CEX, respondent no.1, is under challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned notice, explanation has been called for from the petitioners as […]
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.
