MRF Limited Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) (Madras High Court) Facts- The main allegation is that when natural rubber price increased, the tyre prices were increased in a concerted manner by the domestic major tyre manufacturers, however, when the price of natural rubber decreased, the tyre prices were not reduced by the domestic major […]
Sudhir Kumar Hasija Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution itself has been launched under the wrong premise that the petitioner has not filed his return, but the fact remains that the petitioner was issued with two Pan cards bearing numbers AKKPS7295P and […]
G. Victor Devasahayam Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) It is not disputed that sanction under Section 279 (1) of Income Tax Act is already been granted and sanctioned for the offence under Section 276(C)(1) and other offences. Since the expression unless the sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as […]
If the petitioner had played the role of a WhatsApp group administrator alone and nothing else, then while filing final report, the petitioner’s name shall be deleted. If some other material is also gathered by the first respondent so as to implicate the petitioner, then of course the petitioner will have to challenge the case only on merits.
Healthcubed India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) The show cause notices details and articulates the case of the respondent. It is for the petitioner to reply to the show cause notices to have the goods cleared. If the goods were really meant to be sent to Karnataka for which the petitioner […]
Revenue preferred an appeal against ITAT order which hold that open terrace area which can be accessed only through the private balcony of the individual purchaser should not be included while computing the built-up area for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10).
Vedanta Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Facts- M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited has merged with M/s. Sesa Goa Limited with effect form 17.08.2013. Thereafter, the said company namely M/s. Sesa Goa Limited was amalgamated with M/s. Vedanta Limited, the present petitioner, with effect from 21.04.2015. Mainly it was alleged that notice issued under section […]
Pentamedia Graphics Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Facts- The order is challenged by the assessee on account of period of limitation under section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Assessee argued that the period of limitation, prescribed under Section 153 (2), to pass an order of re-assessment expired on 12.10.2014. However, the impugned order […]
Respondent is directed to release the vehicle subject to payment of the applicable SGST and CGST by the petitioner to be treated as deposit. The respondent shall issue appropriate notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why SGST and CGST directed to be deposited should be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner.
Since the provisions under the Regulations to punish the Customs House Agent for violation and contravention of the Regulations was in addition to the penal provisions prescribed under the parent act, namely, the Customs Act, therefore, mis-declaration of goods and attempt to export such goods by assessee-customs house agent was punishable under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
