The main plea of the petitioners is that the anticipatory bail of these petitioners stand on a better footing than that of two co-accused who have been admitted on interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court who were the Chartered Accountants and against whom there is direct allegation of paying illegal gratification to the principal accused and they were instrumental in getting the accounts of different Income Tax assessees transferred from Kolkata to Ranchi.
Jharkhand High Court held that show cause notice u/s 73(1) on mismatch in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A issued on standard format without strucking off unnecessary particulars or without specifying contraventions is termed as vague.
Jharkhand High Court held that instalments paid under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 is allowed as refund. However, interest on the same is not payable as there was no voluntary payment of tax on self-assessment.
During investigation huge property have been seized which were disproportionate to her known source of income, although, she was housewife and no tax return was filed. It is submitted that the petitioner had several joint bank accounts with her husband Tapas Kumar Dutta, 45 mutual fund investment and number of LIC policies.
Akash Agarwal Vs Union of India through CBI (Jharkhand High Court) Apprehending his arrest, petitioner- Akash Agarwal @ Akash Aggarwal has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with RC AC1 2018A 0006 [corresponding to R.C.06(A)/2018-D] registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7,8, 12 […]
PCIT Vs Urmila RCP Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Jharkhand High Court) Jharkhand High Court dismissed the tax appeal filed by the revenue on the question of maintainability as the tax effect involved in the matter is much below the monetary limit as enumerated in Circular No. 3/2018, Dated: 11/07/2018 read with Circular No. 17 of 2019. […]
Gajraj Vahan Private Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) As per the amended Rule 89 (1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 and Circular dated 25.09.2021, the limitation period for seeking refund would be two years from the date of the instant notification i.e. 24.09.2021. However, in the face of rejection order, petitioner cannot make […]
Jharkhand High Court held that denying migration of unadjusted TDS amount under JVAT Act (Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act) to JGST (Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Jharkhand HC remands case as unregistered dealer, Amar Ent., intends to make mandatory pre-deposit. Appeal to be heard on merits post-deposit.
Once it is found that rectification application u/s 254(2) of I. T. Act, 1961 has been submitted within a period of four years from the date of actual receipt of judgment and order passed by tribunal, which is sought to be reviewed, petitioner is entitled to relief.
