Advantage India Logistics Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh HC) On due of the provisions of Section 4 of the IGST Act, we are of the view that officers appointed under the MPGST Act are authorized to be proper officers for the purpose of IGST and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that […]
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.
Digvijay Singh Bhandari Vs. Shri Nishant Warwade & Others (Madhya Pradesh HC) The entire petition is based on the newspaper published in the local newspaper about distribution of free IPL match passes worth of Rs.60.00 lac to Collector. No other material has been produced in the present petition in support of the allegations. HC held […]
The sole contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that after issuance of the notification, all the check posts have to be removed as GST regime has been introduced and, therefore, they cannot restrict or obstruct any of the vehicle from asking them to pay tax on the check posts except the GST.
M/s Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax of MP & others (Madhya Pradesh High Court) In the present case, the distance was more than 1200-1300 kilometers and it is mandatory for the petitioner to file the Part-B of the e-way bill giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods […]
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reopen the portal immediately enabling the Petitioner Company to revises the filed FORM TRAN-1, so that the Electronic Credit Ledger is updated with the revised input credit.
Petitioner is challenging imposition of GST on the confectionery items on the ground that it does not come within the purview of taxes at the rate of 18% to 28%, as imposed by the respondents.
The undisputed fact reveals that at the time an ex-parte order was passed in assessee’s main appeal, the limitation prescribed under Section 254(2) was four years and the assessee was under an expression as the limitation is four years his application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was within limitation.
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 […]
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 […]
