whether depreciation is mandatory to be granted while determining the Appellant’s entitlement to the deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, even though the Appellant had not claimed such depreciation?
Kangana Ranaut Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. (Bombay High Court) Section 354A of the Act (which is invoked by the MCGM by issuing the impugned Notice dated 7th September, 2020), sets out the ‘power of Commissioner to stop erection of building or work commenced or carried on unlawfully.’ From the works set […]
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 does not impose any limitation that the goods categorized as ‘prohibited goods’ under Section 2(33) cannot be subjected to provisional release under Section 110A.
On 3rd September 2020, the Bombay High Court has passed a landmark ruling placing the wife in a position as a Guardian for her comatose (in the position of coma). The Bombay High Court thereby affirmed that a spouse could be the best Guardian for his/her spouse and thus, appointed the spouse of a comatose man as his guardian for making it easier […]
Tribunal in a detailed discussion contained in judgment, had rejected the contention of Revenue. Tribunal had taken into account the valuation of the existing machinery used at Daman and the valuation of the written down value of machinery transferred from Aurangabad to come to the conclusion that same did not exceed 20% of the total value of machinery. The entire issue was thus based on factual consideration and on appreciation of evidence on record. Thus, no question of law arose.
Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Facts- Government made standard marking of IS 252:2013 mandatory on caustic soda from 03.04.2018. Consignment containing caustic soda was imported by the petitioner vide bill of entry dated 01.11.2018. BIS licence was issued vide licence dated 30.09.2019. It was alleged that the said import was […]
This office is conscious of the procedure required to be followed by it to recover and will initiate the recovery proceeding with issuance of show cause notice, working of interest calculation and further actions as per provision of law. There is no intention of this office to directly recover interest under Section 50 of the CGST / MGST Act, 2017.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Vs Commissioner CGST & Central Excise (Bombay High Court) Taking into consideration, the facts of the case, though the officers under the CGST Act, cannot seek custody of the arrested persons for completing the investigation, respondent’s contention that applicant’s detention in custody is necessary to prevent him from causing the evidence of […]
Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the issuing of a notice u/s 143(2) in the name of the wrong person is sustainable in law? High Court states that it is a fact that the petitioner had filed return for the assessment year 2016-17 in the name of […]
The issue under consideration is Whether compensation paid to earlier buyer to cancel the agreement is deductible expenditure u/s 48 for calculation of Capital Gains?
