Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the writ petition held that the petitioner is having a remedy to challenge the order/notice by way of filing an appeal and the ground raised by him with respect to jurisdiction of the authorities can always be considered by the authorities.
Prism Cement-Unit II Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A bare reading of the expression “Business” u/S.2(d) of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 reveals that tax is leviable inter alia on the event of manufacturer whether or not such event is carried on with motive to make gain or profit and whether or […]
Petition is disposed of with direction to Bhopal Development Authority to reconsider question of levy of GST on sale of developed plots to petitioners
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable in absence of deliberate intention to either conceal income or to furnish inaccurate particulars
CIT Vs S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Sub-Whether there can be any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of a debatable issue? The Division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering department’s appeal when ITAT had given relief to the assessee by holding that there could not have been penalty […]
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that appeal challenging the taxability of service, against the order of CESTAT, lies before Apex Court u/s 35L of the Finance Act, 1944 and not High Court.
By conjoint reading of section 279(2) and clauses 7(v) and 8. (iii), it is explicit that the Income Tax Authorities have the power to compound the offence either before or after the institution of the proceedings but certainly not after the conviction.
Sigma Construction Co. Vs UOI (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The issue whether in cases when tax dues have been paid in full, are eligible under SVLDRS, 2019 for waiver of interest or not. Hon’ble High Court directed CBIC to dwell upon the question and issue a clarificatory circular/instruction so that ambiguity prevailing in the field […]
Keshav Kanshkar A Class Electrical Contractor Vs Principal Secretary Department of Energy (Madhya Pradesh High Court) ‘Precedent’, refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar issues. ‘Precedent’, is incorporated into the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’, and requires courts to apply the law […]
Ganpat Pannalal Vs State Bank of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Conclusion: In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court while remanding the case to the Tribunal observed that the Tribunal under Section 22(1)(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 was competent to restore the Securitization Application by imposition of reasonable cost […]
