Millenium Construction and Ors. Vs Designated Committee (Calcutta High Court) Honorable Calcutta High Court, Circuit bench at Jalpaiguri, in case no. WPA 3120 of 2022, order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Honorable Justice Bibek Chaudhuri , quashed the penalty imposed on the petitioner and also directed to repay the amount and directed to issue the […]
If there is no valid service of notice under section 148, the reassessment proceedings are null and void. service of notice under section 148 is a condition precedent for making reassessment or re-computation under section 147 of the Act.
Bombay High Court directed customs department to come up with the solution to allow online amendment of shipping bill. So that transmitted amended shipping bill can be duly processed by DGFT.
Madras High Court held that provisions of section 174(2) of the CGST Act states that repeal as per subsection (1) shall not affect any rights, privileges or obligations or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the old Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that donation to veda pathashalas, veda pundits, medical assistance etc demonstrates the charitable activities carried on by the Trust. Accordingly, registration u/s 12A as charitable trust and approval u/s 80G granted.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiated revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises, is not permissible in law.
Tribunal has taken view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of value of imported goods, would be appropriate in case of imports violating Exim Policy Provisions.
Rajendra Bana Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) Shri Vedant Agarwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner drew the Court’s attention to the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14794/2022 and urged that the impugned notice whereby, the re-assessment proceedings have been opened against the petitioner, […]
Buldelkhand Engineers Vs Commissioner Commmercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow (Allahabad High Court) It is not in dispute that a written agreement was executed between the assessee – revisionist and Auraiya Gas Power Project. Clause 2.4 categorically provided that the cost included the material and the labour for laying pipeline, the work was to be executed by […]
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (HQRS.) Vs M/s. Spraytec India Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The proviso to Sub-Section (2) of 28-I of the Customs Act prescribes the CAAR from allowing any application filed for advance ruling, where question raised in the application is pending in the applicant’s case before “any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or […]
