Order makes mention of the service of a notice to the company as also to the Director, who represents the company in this writ petition. The notice sent to the company was returned with the postal inscription ‘addressee left’, whereas the notice sent to the Director was duly received by him on 14.03.2017.
The petitioner the consignor of certain goods has approached this Court against the notice issued by the detaining authority under the CGST/SGST Act. After detention when verification was made, it was found that there was mis-classification as also under valuation.
whether the assessee, who made a self assessment of tax and paid tax, far in excess of that determined under the regular assessment; is entitled to interest on the refund.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court recently held that a mere reduction in the shares of one partner, resulting in proportionate increase of shares of another partner would constitute a gift for the purpose of taxation under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act.
All these, provisions of agreement would, therefore, indicate that license that has been granted is that of a fully established running hotel authorizing the licensee to operate the hotel for a specified period subject to the terms and conditions incorporated therein.
It is not open to the Appellate Commissioner to introduce in the Assessment a new source of income and the assessment must be confined to those items of income which were the subject-matter of the original assessment.
CIT Vs M/s Mata Amrithandamayi Mata (Kerala High Court) A reading of Section 11 shows that subject to the provisions of Sections 62 and 63, the incomes enumerated therein shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income. The person in receipt of the […]
CIT Vs. Ms Flytxt Technology P. Ltd. (Kerala High Court) Admittedly, the assessee initially claimed the benefit of Section 10B which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Only when the Commissioner was seized of the proceedings under Section 263, the assessee raised an alternative claim for the benefit of Section 10A. The Commissioner did not […]
The petitioner is aggrieved with the detention of goods at Exhibit P4. The goods are granite purchased by the petitioner from Tami Nadu and transported to Karamana at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner submits that the transport is effected for the purpose of building a residential house; the permit of which is produced at Exhibit P1 and the plan at Exhibit P2
Madhu M.B vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)- It was held that where as the statutory provisions in relation to search, seizure, detention and release thereof is provided under section 129 of CGST Act, 2017, the Department cannot deviate from the said provisions in order to pass an order which is against such provisions contained in the Act.
