Indian Tax Solution

High Court Orders

Filter by publish date

2017-ITS-45-HC-B.N. Sanas Company Private Limited Vs The Collector of Pune, 01/06/2017

Excise Dept To Refund Excessive Fine Imposed 19 Years Ago.


Practice of taking undated cheques by excise department is illegal: HC.

2017-ITS-32-HC- The Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus Sunil Haribhau Pote, DATE : MARCH 21, 2017

Valid service of notice: Law explained on whether sending a notice by RPAD and its return by the postal authorities with the remark \"addressee refused to accept\" amounts to a valid service or not.

2017-ITS-30-HC-Sadhana Textile Mills Private Ltd., Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court), DT- 27/02/2017

BOTTOM LINE :- Bombay HC on eligibility for Benefit of Kar Vivad Scheme,1998.

2017-ITS-13-HC-The Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune Vs. M/s. Vansum Industries,DT-13-02-2017

We are sorry to say that this is not what was expected from the Commissioner of Service Tax. If the officers are unaware of legal procedures, then, they have to be in touch with their Advocates and periodically. They cannot expect that the Advocate himself comes to their office and apprise them as to what further has to be done after the filing of an Appeal. P.C:

2017-ITS-15-HC-Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 Versus M/s. G K K Capital Markets (P) Limited, DT-10th February, 2017.

No disallowance with respect to exempt income can be made if the securities are held as stock-in-trade. CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 referred. 

2017-ITS-14-HC-Central-III, Mumbai Vs. M/s.Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd, Dt- 07-02-2017

The requirement that the documents found during search should ?belong? to the assessee is a condition precedent and a jurisdictional issue. The non-satisfaction of the condition renders the entire proceedings null and void.

2017-ITS-16-HC-Jayant D. Sanghavi vs. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ,DT- 1st FEBRUARY, 2017

If the assessee voluntarily withdraws the appeal, he cannot seek restoration on the ground that the withdrawal was an apparent mistake.

2017-ITS-06-HC-Malay N. Sanghvi. v/s. Income Tax Officer,Dt-31-01-2017

The profits of an undertaking eligible for deduction cannot be treated as \"inflated\" in the absence of material on record to show that there is an arrangement between the eligible unit and the non-eligible unit to generate more than ordinary profits for the eligible unit. The mere fact that there are common customers of both the units does not by itself indicate transfer of profits to the eligible unit.

2017-ITS-17-HC-Malay N. Sanghvi v/s. Income Tax Officer 8(3), Dt-31st JANUARY, 2017.

The mere fact that there are common customers of both the units does not by itself indicate transfer of profits to the eligible unit.

2016-ITS-369-HC-Karnataka Power Transmission Corp Ltd vs. M. Rajashekar, DT - 02-12-2016

NOC from Advocate to appoint new advocate: A litigant has the absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice and to terminate his services any time and for whatever reason. There is no concept of an \"irrevocable vakalatnama\". A party has the absolute freedom to change his advocate. Fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate. The Registry cannot insist on a NOC from the old advocate and refuse to take the new vakalatnama on record.

2016-ITS-396-HC-Aggarwal Industries vs Commissioner, Central Excise & ... on 23 November, 2016

The search and seizure proceedings relate to the premises of the petitioners each of whom applied for settlement. That investigation was split up and issuance of separate show cause notices was a matter of convenience of the Excise department. In respect of two sets of show cause notices potentially there even could have been six but these do not detract from the fact that investigation was a seamless one in relation to the same trigger, i.e., same search and seizure which took place on 17.07.2014. In that proceeding there was only one cause that resulted in the issuance of show cause notices.