Petitioner Shah Pintu Pravinbhai, eight years ago executed one power of attorney dated 02.03.2009 in favour of his uncle Shri. Sureshchandra Velchandbhai. Uncle requested the Petitioner to open up one firm in his name have GST(VAT) and CST registration and the said accused shall manage the all business and the Petitioner has to do nothing in the said business.
the land was sold as an agricultural land and in fact, what was sold was agriculture land. What was the intention of the purchaser cannot be the determinative factor to treat the profit earned by the assessee on sale of agriculture land as business income.
Vanrajbhai Hasmukhbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Issue in brief- petitioner is a habitual offender and is in habit of transporting goods without e-way bill and similar modus operandi is adopted to pay tax, the moment he is caught. There were 10 instances wherein the petitioner is caught without e-way bill and […]
Shree Rama Newsprint Limited Vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court on 18/09/2018 grants interim stay on the retrospective amendment in case of inverted duty refunds whereby refund on input services was denied by notification dated 13-06-2018 w.e.f. 01-07-2017. This is welcome news for persons consuming job work and other service for […]
M/s Indus Projects Limited Vs UOI (Gujarat High Court) 1. Petitioner has to pay GST dues of Rs.3.85 crores (rounded off), for which, due to its financial difficulties, the petitioner has applied to the authority for installments. Such request came to be turned down by the impugned order dated 30.08.2018 without assigning reasons. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that […]
Pravin Natvarlal Modh Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) In the instant case the petitioner is holding a certificate as a sale tax practitioner from the year 1977. In 1983 he enrolled as a an advocate under the state bar council of Gujarat. The VAT authorities initiated misconduct proceedings under section 81 of the […]
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 CIT (Appeals) of Rs.19,92,730/= […]
n the present petition, the petitioners who are themselves active tax consultants and tax practitioners have challenged the vires of section 47 of CGST Act. They are obviously indirectly concerned with the same. As noted, they pointed out that there are millions of dealers who would be adversely affected by the provisions made therein.
Pr. CIT Vs Prakashkumar Bhagchandbhai Khatri (Gujarat High Court) Where assessee, in terms of agreement with company for development and consideration of land owned by assessee, had received trade advances, the same were not loans, therefore, section 2(22)(e) was not attracted. The Tribunal while confirming the view of CIT(A) opined that amount in question was […]
Truptiben Bakulbhai Pate Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) As assessee had neither filed her return of income declaring loss nor had shown such loss in her books of account, this clearly indicated that assessee deliberately withhold the bank account and transactions recorded therein. Further, as she had not furnished any explanation about non-disclosure of bank […]
