Nothing can be added or subtracted. We cannot infer anything which is not available in the reasons recorded. Therefore, in the light of the discussion as well as judicial precedent cited (supra) we find that the reasons recorded does not muster the requirements of the law as necessary for reopening of the assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that the Force of Attraction Rule doesn’t apply unless there is even a remote link between the activities of other projects is established with the PE.
CESTAT Kolkata held that customs broker cannot be alleged to have violated Regulation 10(n) for non-existence of the exporter at the address. Customs Broker is no required to carry out physical verification of the address of the exporter to met his obligation under Regulation 10(n).
ITAT Hyderabad held that revenue cannot deny the TDS credit to the deductee for non-payment of TDS by the deductor. Revenue has to proceed against the deductor by holding him as an assessee-in-default.
Section 212(6) contemplates that before a court decides to grant bail to an accused, public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose bail application.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that area-based exemption vide notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 is available as per substitution in the said notification vide notification no. 34/2005 dated 30.09.2005.
ITAT Bangalore held that reopening beyond the period of 4 years of completion of assessment u/s 143(3) without allegation regarding non-disclosure of full and true material facts is bad-in-law.
Challenge to constitutional validity of section 140(5) of Companies Act, 2013 fails and it is observed and held that section 140(5) is neither discriminatory, arbitrary and/or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India
44 EMB Studio Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though it is correct that for part of the claim which has been rejected refund was sought after a period of two years, however, the period was extended by the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court […]
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that amount deposited during the search cannot be retained by the department as this deposit cannot be taken to be voluntary as no proceedings u/s 74(1) of the CGST Act has been initiated.
