Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Petitioner has placed before the Court various Tax Invoices and e-Way Bills through which purchases have been made by the firm and the record of the Department from which it is revealed that Firms were in existence. As per Rules 25 of the GST Rules, […]
Himani Munjal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in Criminal Complaint No. 35/2018 pending before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Jaipur Mahanagar, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c)(d),(f),(i) and (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax […]
In the given case the issue under consideration is that the amount claimed as capital receipts, by the assessee are taxable and have to be treated as income or not?
M/s. HCL Infosystems Limited Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents a litigant from seeking a remedy in a new court or jurisdiction until all claims or remedies have been exhausted (pursued as fully as possible) in the original one. In this case Rajasthan High Court explains The […]
Petitioner is seeking directions to respondents to refund late fee collected from him while filing Form GSTR-3B in his Cash Ledger in GST Portal so that he can utilise it for discharging his tax liabilities.
Court has no hesitation to hold that the Benami Amendment Act, 2016, amending the Principal Benami Act, 1988, enacted w.e.f. 1st November, 2016, i.e. the date determined by the Central Government in its wisdom for its enforcement; cannot have retrospective effect.
Since no incriminating material was unearthed by AO during the course of search operation under section 132, therefore no addition could be made during the relevant assessment year under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter, which was examined earlier during original assessment.
Section 174(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 prima facie seems to preserve the levy insofar as any liability to pay tax was incurred by the individual or concern. Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition cannot be maintained. It is open to the Writ petitioner to raise all contentions including levy and extent of levy of service tax before the adjudicating officer concerned. Writ petition is disposed of.
Where the intention of assessee for purchase of the land was for resale and within a short period of time though the sale was only to the companies of which the assessee was a director, it was apparent that assessee was acting as an interface to purchase the lands from the land owners and then converted in non-agricultural use and sold to these companies who were in the business of real estate. Hence, properties sold were not excluded from the meaning of capital asset, as they were not agricultural land as defined by section 2(14).
Pr. CIT Vs Roshan Lal Sancheti (Rajasthan High Court) it must be held that statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the assessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been generally […]
