The issue under consideration is that despite the admitted successful filing of Form TRAN-1 by the Petitioner, the request of the Petitioner for transitioning of credit has not been approved by the ITGRC merely on the basis that there were no technical glitches on the GSTN side is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether interest under section 50 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is to be levied on the gross tax liability? HC are of the view that no live issue survives for adjudication in this case. Recovery notices issued by the respondents are hereby quashed.
The issue under consideration is whether the order passed by the custom officer against the self assessment done by petitioner without stating any specific reason is sustainable in law?
The issue under consideration is application of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR) communicated via email is justified in law?
The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Another Vs Union of India & Another (Bombay High Court) Hon. Bombay High Court admits Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners have challenged the validity of various provisions of Sections 49, 50CA and 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as provisions […]
Basic grievance of the Petitioners are that their bills for export of onions were prior to issuance of notification dated 14th September, 2020 whereby export of onions has been prohibited; yet those are not being permitted to be exported.
Confederation of GST Professionals and Industries Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) CGPI had filed writ petition for extension of due date of GSTR 9 and 9C before Bombay high court and Honorable High Court has fixed next hearing on 27th October, 2020. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT Heard learned Sr. […]
Merely pointing out to a source and the source admitting that it has made the payments is not, sufficient to discharge the burden placed on the assessees by Section 68 of the said Act. If this were so, then, it would be sufficient for assessees, to simply persuade some credit- less person or entity to own up having made such huge payments and thereby evade payment of property tax on the specious plea that the Revenue, can always recover the tax from such credit- less source, if possible.
The issue under consideration is whether the assessment order u/s 143(3) made by the AO in clear breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C is merely erroneous or is void ab initio?
The issue under consideration is whether the AO’s order for rejecting the application for issuance of a certificate for lower deduction or nil deduction u/s 197 is justified in law?
