Respondent has not charged any GST from his buyers in case of both the supplies, one effected before the rate reduction and the other after that date. Since no GST was charged by the Respondent before and after the relevant date i.e. 01.01.2019, question of profiteering does not arise in this case.
M/s J. R. Diamonds P Limited (Vinod Tarachand Agrawal) Vs. Registrar of Companies (NCLT Ahmedabad) In path-breaking judgement delivered by Hon’ble NCLT Ahmedabad, set aside ROC order to struck down the name of the company from ROC register. M/s J R Diamonds P Limited, company wherein no financial creditors are their was under Insolvency process […]
Union of India Vs Unicorn Industries (Supreme Court) 3 Judge Bench of Supreme Court has held that the inapplicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel is established when the larger public interest demands so. Observing that pan masala (with or without tobacco) was found to be one of the causes of oral cancer, the Court was […]
Revenue has not made out any bar for the transitioning of EC, SHEC and KKC into the GST regime and the petitioner satisfies all conditions both under sub-section (1) and (8) of section 140. The embargo placed by Rule 3(7)(b) is long gone with the introduction of GST. Certainly the powers-that-be are conscious of these factors in drafting the new legislation and the specific provision in question i.e., Section 140.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court declined to entertain pleas filed by the kin of former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah challenging their alleged house arrest by the State. High Court held that In writ proceedings, a fact is to be supported and proved by authentic documentary evidence. Press cuttings cannot be relied upon as authentic documentary evidence.
Narang Access Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case the valuation done by the assessee for valuing its shares is on the basis of DCF method and the AO could not have substituted it by NAV method rather he should have arrived at another value, if any, by applying DCF method only. […]
Shri Hardev Singh Vs M/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) As per the payment schedule, buyers had to pay 5% of the total amount at the time of booking, i.e. at the time of submission of the application for allotment and the first draw for allotment was held on 31.03.2017 during the […]
Issuance of notice under section 143(2) on the very same day when return was filed showed non-application of mind on AO’s part in issuing section 143(2) notice and thereafter in framing assessment and therefore, all proceedings were nullity.
M/S. GCDA Employees Vs COIT (Kerala High Court) It is well settled that pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. Pension is in the nature of deferred payment earned for rendering long and satisfactory service with the employer. It is […]
It cannot be considered as passing on of the benefit of additional ITC as the above discount has been given by the Respondents to set off the prices which he had increased and not on account of the benefit of ITC. Accordingly, the discount of Rs. 1,11,61,090/- claimed to have been paid to the house buyers by the Respondent cannot be held as the benefit of ITC and hence, the claims made by the Respondents in this behalf cannot be accepted.
