Commissioner Tax Vs M/s Hanuman Industries Kichha (Uttarakhand High Court) There is delay of 1819 days’ in filing the Revision. It is stated that after receiving the copy of the judgment dated 29.01.2013, matter was discussed at various levels and the proposal was received by the Department on 01.05.2013. It is stated that Department instructed […]
M/s Hillways Construction Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Department and others (Uttarakhand High Court); Admittedly Section 420 of IPC is an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC. Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, of which the petitioner is seeking benefit, categorically stipulates that in case prosecution is going on against a person […]
The revisionist called in question the order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, by which the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent assessee and set aside the order of the Appellate authority and also modified the order passed by the Assessing officer and set aside the tax imposed and declared the dealer (respondent)exempted from tax
In this case, we are concerned with the question as to whether Samosa is to be treated as namkeen or cooked food and we are not asked to pronounce upon whether it is to be treated as unclassified items, the choice is narrowed down to whether it is to be treated as namkeen or as cooked food.
Assessee is obliged to deduct tax on the payment made by it to the Carrier under the contracts for transporting the petroleum products in the business in which the respondent assessee is engaged. On the one hand, it is the case of the appellant Department that the case of the respondent assessee falls under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . On the other hand, the case of the respondent assessee is that its case falls under Section 1 94C of the Act.
Jaspreet Kalra Vs. Union of India (High Court of Uttarakhand) It is the contention of learned senior counsel that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized by respondent no.3 thereby imposing a penalty of Rs.5,03,125/- equal to the IGST (the tax amount) on the technical ground that the validity of e-way bill had expired […]
Uttarakhand High Court held In the case of CIT (TDS) & others vs. State Bank of India & others that every authority of discretionary power would be obliged to act, in the first place, being guided by relevant considerations and ignoring irrelevant considerations.
Where the element of service has been declared and brought to tax vide notification dated 6 June 2012, by which Service tax is levied on 40% of the billed value in restaurant, no VAT can be imposed thereon on such amount. Copy of the decision is enclosed herewith.
Being a resident of Korea, appellant is governed by the Income-tax Laws applicable to the class of assessees as that of the appellant as prevalent in Korea. Therefore, it has a tax identity in Korea. In addition thereto, appellant has submitted to the jurisdiction of Indian Taxing Authorities by furnishing return of income and, thereby, acknowledged that it has also a tax identity in India.
Due date referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act must be read in conjunction with section 43B(b) of the Act and a reading of the same would make it amply clear that the due date as mentioned in Section 36(1)(va), is the due date as mentioned in section 43B(b)
