A SCN must clearly state the allegations that concerned noticee has to meet, being the essence of a SCN, any notice that does not qualify this criterion, cannot be considered as a SCN, which are not meant to be issued mechanically to comply with a formality, but to serve the principles of natural justice and to enable the concerned authority to take an informed decision.
Delhi High Court has held that issuance of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty proceeding has been initiated is bad in law.
HC set aside reassessment order against assessee, for non-supply of information/ material by Revenue Department for reopening of assessment.
Delhi High Court held that power of Enforcement Directorate (ED) stands confined to the offense of money laundering as defined in terms of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
CIRP and avoidance applications, are, by their very nature, a separate set of proceedings wherein, the former, being objective in nature, is time bound whereas the latter requires a proper discovery of suspect transactions that are to be avoided by the Adjudicating Authority. The scheme of the IBC reinforces this difference. Accordingly, adjudication of an avoidance application is independent of the resolution of the corporate debtor and can survive CIRP.
The fact that shares were traded on stock exchange after paying securities transaction tax, and that money had been received through banking channels only demonstrated that they were not bogus transactions.
Rekha Saxena Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (Delhi High Court) HC held that orders cancelling registration are a serious matter, they impact the registrants, and therefore, the concerned officer should carefully pen down the orders, and not rely on the system generated orders. In this case, it appears that the order dated […]
According to HC, the central issue, to which the Assessing Officer (AO) should have applied his mind is, as to whether the investment in shares of Agile by the petitioner was a capital account transaction, given the fact that there is no allegation of round-tripping.
High Court granted stay of recovery of interest and penalty however directed to deposit profiteered amount in instalments and also granted stay of notice expanding scope of anti-profiteering investigation
HC set aside order raising a demand of tax and penalty for release of the goods. Held that, neither SCN nor order of demand stated reasons for imposing tax liability as well as penalty.
