Claim of drawback of excise and customs duties paid on the raw materials used in manufacturing could not be denied merely because some processes in the chain of manufacturing had been conducted in the premise of EOU/unit of EPZ, if the assessee was otherwise entitled to the benefit.
Similarly, arrest of Chartered Accountant or Advocates who had filed returns or otherwise assisted in business but are not beneficiary or part of fraud merely on the basis of statement without any corroborative evidence linking the professional with alleged offence should be avoided. It is well known that if top brass of a running concern is arrested, there are all possibilities of closure of unit which results into unemployment and wastage of precious natural resources.
Texool Wastesavers Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Relying on the permission which was granted in terms of project report made before the Development Commissioner, which stated that the SEZ unit was permitted to import garments that were almost new but could be out of fashion in terms of time as far as the country of production […]
Messrs Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) In this case petitioner had duly discharged the tax liability of August, 2017 within the period prescribed therefor; however, it was only on account of technical glitches in the System that the amount of tax paid by the petitioner for August 2017 […]
Subject to final outcome of the writ petition, we permit the petitioner to rectify the return in GSTR 1 Form for the period November, 2017 in respect of the six recipients noted in the tabulation hereinabove, by correcting their GSTIN Nos.
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs CBI (Supreme Court) (I.A. No. 63168/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., I.A. No.71678/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and I.A. No. 66253/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 1. Allowed subject to just exception. MA 58/2019 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 225/2018 (PIL-W) (I.A. No. 182576/2018 – CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN THE JUDGMENT) […]
In the present case the Chief Commissioner of Income tax is not the officer specified in section 151 of the Act. There is thus a breach of requirement of section 151(2) of the Act regarding sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned notice and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to succeed.
In order to decide whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Section 11, it is necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether it satisfy the requirement of Section 11 (4A).
The factual position in the present case is not any different and thus, we allow the present petition and direct the respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the Form TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 20.11.2019.
FCI OEN Connectors Limited Vs DCIT (Kerala High Court) e-proceeding facility that was introduced as part of the Government initiative towards e-Governance, in the Income Tax Department, was not made mandatory for proceedings initiated against assessees in Kochi city. Save for the assessees in the seven metro cities specified, of which Kochi is not one, […]
