Ram Chet Verma & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Supreme Court) Since the appellants have served as per the interim order, obviously they have to be paid the salary for the period they have rendered their services. Non-payment of salary to them for the period they have served under the interim order or otherwise would tantamount to taking begar from them, which is prohibited under Article 23 of […]
Where AO of searched person had not recorded the reasons and order sheet of AO of assessee though reasons were typed but remained unsigned, notice issued u/s 153C and the assessment order passed by AO was not valid as AO did not comply with the statutory requirement for issue of notice u/s 153C.
Whether ‘Liquidated Damages’ and other penalties like milestone penalties levied on suppliers/ contractors in the nature of making good the damages for any delays in supply of service or goods in the following cases are exigible to GST or not?
M/S Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Core Question as the petitioners put it,is does the State have the legislative competence to enact section 174 and save the past taxation events—comprising levy, assessment, and recovery—when Entry 54, List II, which is the field of legislation empowering the State, stood […]
Rejection of IGST refund without considering assessee’s reply and also without affording an opportunity of personal hearing was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, matter was remanded back for reconsideration to decide the refund claim on merits within the stipulated period.
CIT Vs Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. (High Court Madras) n order to get over the legal embargo which permitted such expense to be allowable as a deduction, the Income Tax Act was amended and Section 35DDA was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f 01.04.2001. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside […]
International Lease Finance Corporation Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court has held that non-commercial re-export of duty-paid goods would be entitled to drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act and that requirement of Guaranteed Remittance was not necessary in a case where the exporter and owner of the […]
Kopran Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (E) (CESTAT Mumbai) Rejecting the plea that bond/LUT executed by assessee-importer did not cover the anti-dumping duty leviable on material imported under Advance Authorisation, The Tribunal observed that the bond executed did not make any distinction between the duties leviable. Larger Bench order in Caprihans and Bombay High Court […]
Zeenath International Supplies Vs CIT (High Court Madras) Sub-Section (9) of Section 139 of the Act is beneficial provision to the assessee, which provides them an opportunity to rectify the defects. Since the intention being that the assessment proceedings are an outcome of dialogue and discussion, the Assessing Officer is entitled to clarify all issues by issuing notice to the assessee and calling upon them to produce […]
Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee purchased the flat bearing flat no.602, in the building namely Ornate Galaxy, located at L.T. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai. No doubt, the assessee Dr. Natarajan is the CMD of hospital and is having 99% share of the assessee company. The flat is near to […]
