Dr. R. P. Patel & Ors. Vs Asst. Director of Income Tax (Investigations) & Ors. (Kerala High Court) Authorised officer conducting the search & seizure cannot retain the documents/ assets beyond 15 days and encash IVPs for adjustment against tax liability Hon’ble Kerala High Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge denying […]
State Tax Officer Vs Y.Balakrishnan (Kerala High Court) (1) The provisions of section 130 of the Act contemplate release of goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation at two stages (i) during the process of adjudication, under section 130(2) and, (ii) post-adjudication under section 130(3) of the Act. (2) At the time of […]
Council, for bringing the petroleum products under the GST regime, i.e., (i) the matter involves high revenue implications, (ii) requires larger deliberations and (iii) during pandemic times, it would be difficult to bring petroleum products under GST regime.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Review Petition and it was observed that the provisions of section 130 of the Act contemplate release of goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation at two stages (i) during the process of adjudication, under section 130(2) and, (ii) post-adjudication under section 130(3) of the Act.
The assessee has not proved that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act does not have any application on the said payment of Rs.21,27,846. Hence, the A.O. was correctly disallowed the expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
CIT Vs South Indian Bank Ltd (Kerala High Court) Facts- The AO through the assessment order disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 36(1)(viia). Similarly, the AO disallowed the revaluation of unquoted securities adopted by the assessee. The appeal of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed in part. Further, in the appeal […]
The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation and manufacture and production of crude palm oil. A controversy arose between the assessee and the revenue, with the revenue implementing Rule 7 of the Central Income Tax Rules, 1962 providing for assessment of income which is partly agricultural and partly business income.
Held that the retrospectivity of tax or its collection brought in by the Finance Act 16 of 2011 is not controlled by the validation clause in section 12 of that Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
Thomas Cherian Vs CBI Thiruvananthapuram Unit (Kerala High Court) Facts- The case relates to loan transactions conducted in the State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch, Kottayam. The substance of the allegations against the accused is that loan was sanctioned on the basis of fictitious and forged documents, pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by the bank […]
K. P. Abdul Majeed Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court) The next question is as to the commission which could have been assessed at the hands of the assessee for which also the assessee refused to state anything as to the actual percentage. The assessee’s contention is that the same should be confined to that fixed […]
