Commissioner of Customs Vs M/s. Motorola India Ltd. (Supreme Court) 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that an appeal against the CESTAT Order, involving violation of conditions of Customs exemption notification, would lie before the High Court and not the Supreme Court. Remanding the matters back to the High Court, the Apex Court […]
Challenge to Constitutional Validity of Section 115BBDA of the Act in the Hon’ble Supreme Court In a Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 115BBDA [Tax on Dividend income above Rs. 10 Lakhs] of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted liberty to file SLP against […]
Kishore Sharma Vs Sachin Dubey (Supreme Court of India) The present appeal takes exception to the order dated 15th November, 2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, thereby it allowed the application filed by the respondent for quashing of proceedings instituted against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, […]
High Court in the absence of any discussion or/and the reasoning/ground as to why the order of ITAT did not suffer from any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue were not acceptable and why the appeal did not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed could not be answered in Revenue’s favour, the impugned order dismissing the Revenue’s appeal suffered from jurisdictional errors and, therefore, legally unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 260A.
In view of the guidelines issued by the CBDT in Instruction 3/2003 the Tribunal was right in observing that by not making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer had breached the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT.
CIT Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (Supreme Court of India) S. 143(2)/ 292BB: The failure to issue a notice u/s 143(2) renders the assessment order void even if the assessee has participated in the proceedings. S. 292BB does not save complete absence of notice. For S. 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the […]
We find from the provision that the Settlement Commissioner is free to grant further time for payment, under Section 245H(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 5. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to relegate the appellant to the Settlement Commissioner for enlargement of time, since the payments have already been made.
Nareshbhai Bhagubhai vs Union Of India (Supreme Court) The issue which remains to be decided is that in the absence of an order passed on the objections under Section 20D, should the consequential steps be invalidated. We find that the challenge before this Court has been made by the Appellants with respect to a stretch […]
Judgement dated 9th August, 2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 43/2019 and other petitions. While dismissing the various petitions filed by builders and upholding the constitutional validity of status of allottees as financial […]
C. Pradeep Vs The Commissioner Of Gst And Central Excise Selam & Anr (Supreme Court of India) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that indisputably assessment for the relevant period has not been completed by the Department so far. In which case, invoking Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does […]
