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 […]
HC Held that respondent-bank (SIDBI) cannot withdraw from offer of One-time Settlement which is already accepted by the petitioner/ borrower.
Create Consults Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court) While generating the e-way bill, on account of a bonofide error, instead of detail of AVGOL India Pvt. Ltd. (Supplier), petitioner mentioned its own details. Meaning thereby the petitioner made attempt to demonstrate that the e-way bill which was generated by petitioner, should have […]
Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28-9-2019, whereby the appellate authority, respondent No.3 herein, has confirmed the imposition of tax to the extent of Rs.1112134/- and penalty […]
