While admitting a petition challenging the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax (GGST) Act which restricts the time limit for filing and revising of GST Tran 1 to the extent of only 180 days from the appointed day, the Gujarat High Court has issued notices to Centre and GST Council.
Respondent assessee is a private limited company. The business premises of the company was subjected to survey operation under section 133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short). During the survey operation, the Revenue claimed to have seized and impounded a diary which allegedly reveal certain cash transactions with respect to sell of Vatva land. Statement of the directors of the company were also recorded.
CIT Vs Arvind Products Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) Assessee who was engaged in manufacturing textile products, had expended the amount in question for product development undertaken by a sister concern of the assessee on its behalf. The research work did not involve development of a new product or even a new technique or technology to […]
Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench dated 28th August 2017, raising the following question for our consideration
Principal CIT Vs Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (Gujarat High Court) It is well settled that even in case where the original assessment is made without scrutiny, the requirement of the Assessing Officer forming the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, would apply. Reference in this respect can be made of the judgment in […]
Nila Infrastructure Limited vs. Surat Municipal Corporation (Gujarat High court) Non-payment of GST along with the bid fee to procure a tender would amount to non-compliance with the remittance of bid fee – bidder would be liable for disqualification- Gujarat High court FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: 1.0. […]
What subsection (1) of Section 54 of the Act requires is that the assessee, after the date of transfer, purchases or within three years after such date, constructs a residential unit, only then the benefit of deduction would be granted. This provision, therefore, provides that construction of the residential unit should be done after the date of transfer but, within three years from such date.
This group of writ petitions arise in similar background. We may record facts from Special Civil Application No. 12765 of 2017 and 12764 of 2017. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12765 of 2017 is a partner of one M/s. Hitech Analytical Services and she would hereafter to be referred to as ‘a partner of the said firm.
Section 41(1) of the Act in plain terms provides for adding back of an allowance or deduction which has been made by the assessee in any year in respect of loss expenditure or trading liability and subsequently during any previous year such liability ceases. The primary requirement of applicability of this provision therefore is where an allowance or reduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of such loss or expenditure or trading liability. When no such allowance or deduction was made, question of applicability of section 41(1) of the Act would not arise.
These Tax Appeals involved two assessees but the facts being closely similar, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had dealt with the departments appeals by a common judgment, which is impugned in these Tax Appeals
