Eris Life Sciences (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (High Court Gujarat) As per sub-section (3) of section 201 which stood prior to 1.10.2014, the initiation of action for failing to deduct tax at source is barred by limitation. The amended sub-section(3) of section 201 with effect from 1.10.2014 enlarges the period of limitation to seven years which, as held by […]
MCA order in publishing the list of directors associated with struck off companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 on the Website of MCA, showing the status of assessee as disqualified Directors was not legally tenable as section 164(2) of the Companies Act would take effect only from the financial year 2014-15.
Zaveri and Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) 1. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has challenged rule 96 (10) (b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 insofar as the same has been given retrospective effect. It was pointed out that […]
AAP And Co., Chartered Accounts Vs. Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Press release for Form GST-3B changing last date for credit challenged: Gujarat High Court issues notice to Centre, GST Council and State Petitioner chartered accountant firm “AAP & Co.” challenged the Press release dated 18.10.2018 to the extent that the last date for […]
Claim for deduction under section 35(2AB) could not be defeated on the ground that approval from prescribed authority was granted in the year subsequent to the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred.
Hitech Outsourcing Services Vs CIT (Gujarat High Court) We have noticed that the Assessing Officer in teh original assessment proceedings had examined the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. It is not as if such claim went unnoticed or unscrutinized. He wanted to be specific about the assessee’s claim for deduction […]
Whether the petitioner is correct in contending that he had already suffered the deduction of tax, the mere fact that the deductee did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue could not permit the Income tax Department to recover such amount from the petitioner.
M/s. Supernova System Private Limited Vs. CCIT (Gujarat High Court) CBDT circular issued on 23.12.2014 prescribes compounding fees for offense under section 276C(1) at 100% of the amount sought to be evaded. This para also starts with an expression ‘Section 276C(1)- Wilful attempt to evade tax etc.’ The title of this para thus, is taken […]
Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The Assessing Officer may be correct in pointing out that when the sale consideration as per the sale deed is Rs.50 lakhs but the registering authority has valued the property on the date of sale at Rs.1,18,95,000/- for stamp duty calculation, section 50C of the Act […]
Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) When the assessee failed to prove the capacity of the concerned persons who alleged to have given the unsecured loan and/or gift, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in confirming the additions made by the Assessing officer and confirmed by the […]
