PCIT Vs Arvind N Nopany (Gujarat High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the gift received from Brother-in-law is exempt u/s 56(2) of I T Act? High Court states that, the tribunal took into consideration the details of the donor, more particularly, the PAN number, capital gain statement, bank statements and the other relevant […]
Arun Munshaw HUF Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) Thus, having regard to the position of law and the materials emerging from the record of the case, it cannot be said that there was no full and true disclosure at the end of the assessee of the material facts. In such circumstances, it could be said […]
It is a settled principle of law that commission paid to persons for referring names of customers is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act for introducing potential customers to the assessee falls within the ambit of service.
Loan amount which was never claimed by assessee as expenditure, waiver of same could not amount to cessation of trading liability and was not chargeable to tax under section 41(1).
we are inclined to pass an interim order for the release of the goods and the vehicles. We direct the writ applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.50,40,972/ towards the tax with the respondent no.2 and the balance amount of Rs.50,40,972/ towards the penalty shall be in the form of a bank guarantee of any nationalized bank. On deposit of the requisite amount and the bank guarantee, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicles forthwith.
Mono Steel (India) Ltd Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The plain reading of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17th January, 2019 would indicate that the attachment of the bank accounts was ordered to be released subject to the writ applicant maintaining an amount of Rs.4 Crore in […]
Since Central Excise Department had not sanctioned any refund / rebate of the duty paid on the supplies to the EOUs by assessee-company and the refund of TED was sanctioned by the DGFT thus, if DGFT had acted under the different provisions and the refund was sanctioned under those provisions, the proper authority was DGFT who could initiate proceedings against the assessee-company for violation of exemption notification and the Advance Authorization Licence not the Central Excise Department.
Arya Traders Vs. State of Gujarat (Gujarat high court) The present writ petition is filed mainly for seeking release against the goods and vehicle without demanding any security. High Court states that, the goods and the conveyance came to be detained and seized way back on 9th July, 2019. Till this date, the goods and […]
Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachment of the immovable property under Section 83 to the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the order of provisional attachment passed by the Assistant Commissioner was hereby quashed and set aside.
Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court) In the given case, Assessee has filed appeal before ITAT against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 44AD. With respect to that appeal ITAT passed the order and state that “the Assessee is directed to attend the assessment proceedings and justify its claim of […]
