In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the recovery Notice issued by SEBI as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and no mechanism/ calculation was provided by the recovery officer on the basis of which demand could be sustained.
AB Traders Vs State of Gujarat & 1 Other(S) (Gujarat High Court) 1. The petitioner, which is a proprietorship firm, received order for purchase of arecanut from a buyer in New Delhi. The petitioner appointed transporter for such transportation. It was specifically conveyed to the transporter that movement of goods was to be commenced only […]
Late Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai (Since Decd.) Through Legal Heir Raju Bhupendra Desai Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The only proposition of law that is applicable in the present litigation is that a notice, be it under Section 148 of the Act or Section 153C of the Act, issued to a dead person, is unenforceable in […]
Sandesh Procon LLP Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) A bare perusal of the reasons and original the assessment order made under Section 143(3) of the Act, the facts emerge that, the respondent authority had determined the issue of disallowance after considering the material available and now again without any tangible material available with the Assessing […]
Hazel Mercantile Ltd. Vs Chief Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court) We find from the records of the case is that the though it is a stand of the Union of India that there can be no provisional release of goods pending seizure for which reliance is placed on a decision in the case of […]
Geetaben Dineshchandra Gupta Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) Geetaben Dinesh chandra Gupta (Petitioner) has filed the current petition challenging the notice dated March 23, 2019 which proposed the reopening of assessment of the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act). The Petitioner contended that even after the petitioner disclosed […]
Hitachi Hi Rel Power Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court) A.O. could be said to have overlooked or rather ignored the jurisdictional requirement of a satisfaction in accordance with para 3.4 of the instruction No.3 of 2016 referred to above that there ought to be an income or potential of an income arising […]
Bharatkumar Kalubhai Ghadiya Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) In the case on hand also, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the petitioner is a beneficiary of accommodation entry and basis for formation of such belief is several inquiries and the investigation by the Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad and report thereof. The reasons for the […]
Dishman Infrastructure Limited Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) Request made by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.M. R. Bhatt for the respondent to exclude the period during which the present petition remained pending in the High Court after issuance of the notice i.e. from 14.6.20201 till this date, deserves to be considered for the purpose of […]
PCIT Vs Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) Revenue contended that provisional fees was not being treated as income during the year by ignoring the Section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA of the Rules. Admittedly there is no provision under the Act to tax the same income twice as […]
