Petitioner was surprised that jurisdiction had been shifted from Bhubaneswar to Balasore and he accordingly filed an objection on 10th March, 2016.
HC held that there cannot be an automatic enhancement of taxable turnover on the basis of eye estimation by the Assessing Officer
Orissa High Court held that assessee has discharged its initial burden of showing that the transaction was only a branch transfer, whereas, the Department has been unable to prove the transaction was not merely a branch transfer but was a movement of goods by way of interstate sale. Accordingly, Central Sales Tax not leviable.
Pawan Kumar Agrawala Vs Income Tax Officer (Orissa High Court) The Chief Justice bench of Orissa High Court, of late has not been entertaining writ petition against notice u/s 148 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Jain. This is notwithstanding the fact that on 1st February 2023, […]
Tribunal was justified to tax tyre, tube and flaps when sold along with tractor-trolley as a single unit to be taxed separately @ 12.5% [up to 31.03.2011] and 13.5% [after 01.04.2011]
HC permitted assessee to rectify its GST Returns filed for the months of September 2017 and March 2018, in order to claim ITC benefit by the recipient, wherein B2C was erroneously mentioned, instead of B2B. Held that, the assessee will be unnecessarily prejudiced if it is not allowed to avail the benefits of ITC.
HC held that as SC having struck down Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise Rules in toto, the question of sustaining penalty imposed thereunder against Appellant does not arise.
Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT (Orissa High Court) A plain reading of ection 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicates that the taxing of the deemed dividend has to be in the hands of the shareholder of OSL. In the present case, admittedly it is Mr. Mishra in his individual capacity who holds 36.95% of […]
CIT/PCIT Vs Paradeep Port Trust (Orissa High Court) The very text of the Finance Act, 2008 and in particular Section 3 thereof which inserts the amended Section 2(15) clearly states that “the following clause shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009.” Clearly, therefore, the amendment is prospective. Consequently, the Court […]
Court quashes order issued by Department rejecting SVLDR applications of Petitioner since they are based on an erroneous interpretation of not only SVLDR Scheme but also Section 125(1)(h) of Finance Act.
