Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd appeal: The income tax department cannot presume something to have happened five years ago, it did not mean that assessee indulged in similar activity in the previous year
PCIT Vs Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Section 292BB does not dispense with issuance of any notice that is mandated to be issued under the Act, but merely cures the defect of service of such notice if an objection in such regard is not taken before completion of assessment or reassessment as time […]
Imposition of interest is justified under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, save and except on the income which arises from retrospective operation of any statute, decision etc.
Teesta Distributors & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) The following issues have arisen for consideration:- i) Is lottery a ‘goods’ or an ‘actionable claim’? It has held that, a lottery is in essential a chance for a prize, the sale of a lottery ticket can only be a sale of […]
Calcutta High Court grants bail to alleged GST defaulters accused of evasion via fake invoices. Analysis of the court’s decision on bail conditions and statutory rights.
Director of Income Tax Vs Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) In 1996, the Cricket World Cup tournament was held in the sub-continent. Sri Lanka won it, for the only time, in history. The International Cricket Council (ICC) has its head quarters in London. It is the organisation […]
Supersmelt Sponge Private Limited. Vs Superintendent, (Anti Evasion), Central Tax, C.G.S.T., Commissionerate, Bolpur & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) It was submitted that, the appeal filed by the petitioner is before a wrong authority. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), C.G.S.T. Commissionerate, Siliguri has jurisdiction over the subject matter. He submits that, respondent no. 3 as described in […]
The petitioner seeks a declaration that sub-rule (2) of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as substituted by notification no. 23/24/ST dated December 25, 2014 is arbitrary and in conflict with provisions of Section 72A of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that, the provisions of clause (k) of subsection (2) of Section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 is unguided and gives uncontrolled power of delegation. The third prayer is with regard to a notice dated February 16, 2015.
J. J. Development Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) Section 68 Bogus share capital: The appellant-assessee has referred to a judgment of this Court reported at 114 ITR 689 for the proposition that upon the identity of the person who has put in the money being established by the assessee, the onus is on […]
It appears that, the petitioner as the owner was well aware of the confiscation proceedings. At such proceedings, the petitioner did not appear either before the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority or before the Writ Court claiming that, the proceedings stand vitiated by lack of notice to the petitioner. The driver of the vehicle was given notice to the confiscation proceedings. He participated in such confiscation proceedings.
