Madhya Pradesh HC

GST Evasion: HC denies Bail in alleged Turnover under reporting case

Shailesh Rajpal Vs Commissioner (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

Looking to the alleged huge tax evasion by the applicant and the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent and keeping in view that the investigation is going on and apprehensions of applicant tampering with the evidence can not be ruled out. So, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Hence, the...

Read More

Adjudicating authority obliged to examine stand of alleged Benamindar: HC

Kailash Assudani Vs CIT (Madhya Pradesh High court)

Kailash Assudani Vs CIT (Madhya Pradesh High court) A plain reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 makes it clear that the adjudicating authority is obliged to examine the stand of alleged Benamindar in reply to the show cause notice. He is further obliged to make further […...

Read More

Adjudicating Authority only can decide on Benami nature of property

Kailash Assudani Vs CIT (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

Kailash Assudani Vs CIT (Madhya Pradesh High Court) High Court held that It is the Adjudicating Authority who is to decide the question of Benami nature of the property. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act contemplates the issuance of show cause notice as to why the property specified in the notice should not […]...

Read More

‘Benami’ property: HC refuses to interfere against provisional attachment order

Simmant Kohli Vs Union Of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

Simmant Kohli Vs Union Of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The Court opined that pending final adjudication whether property is in the name of petitioner are ‘Benami’ property or not, the authorities concerned have passed an order of provisional attachment as a matter of precaution, until the dispute is finally resolved, no interfere...

Read More

GSTR-1 Return filing amounts to determination of tax : HC

Kabeer Reality Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh HC)

Kabeer Reality Private Limited Vs The Union of India & Others (Madhya Pradesh HC) The petitioner has certainly not paid the GST. It is noteworthy to mention that GSTR-1 is declaration of tax liability and GSTR-3B is evidence of actual payment. The petitioner has stated that GSTR-1 cannot be termed or classified as self assessed [&hell...

Read More

Loan received from company not deemed dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) if assessee was not a member/shareholder of concerned company

CIT Vs Prem Motors (Madhya Pradesh HC)

Where assessee was not a member/shareholder of the concerned company, therefore, loan/advance received from such company was not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)....

Read More

HC rejects plea that summons can be issued only after CGST Section 73 decision

Om Shiv Associates Vs Union of India & Ors. (Madhya Pradesh HC)

Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea that proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, relating to summons, can only be taken recourse to after decision under Section 73, relating to demand of tax. The High Court in this regard declined to quash the notice for personal hearing....

Read More

HC denies bail in Wrongful availment of GST input tax credit

Jagdish Kanani Vs Commissioner, CGST & CE (Madhya Pradesh HC)

U/s. 69 of the GST Act, the Commissioner is having power to arrest if he has reasons to believe that a person has committed an offence specified in Clause (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the GST Act. Section 132(1) (a), (b) and (c) of GST Act define types of offences and according to which, whoever commits offence o...

Read More

Sec. 68 addition cannot be made merely for exorbitant premium

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Chain House International (P) Ltd.) (Madhya Pradesh HC)

Addition under section 68 on account of bogus share capital and exorbitant premium was not justified as where the funds had been received through banking channel  and there was no dispute about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the investors. ...

Read More

No advocate / chartered accountants can represent willful defaulter

Revati Cements Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs State Bank of India & Ors. (Madhya Pradesh HC)

Assessee-company being a ‘willful defaulter’ could not be represented through the lawyers or Chartered Accountants as the personal hearing was available only to borrower Director and Promoter of the alleged default unit....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,473)
Company Law (5,377)
Custom Duty (7,627)
DGFT (4,117)
Excise Duty (4,328)
Fema / RBI (3,973)
Finance (4,172)
Income Tax (32,000)
SEBI (3,320)
Service Tax (3,517)