Search Results for "Tax evasion"

231 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 231 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Lack of Proper Sanction. Reassessment proceedings initiated without valid approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invalid.

The petitioner, Vilas Babankrao Kalokhe, challenged a reassessment notice dated 30-03-2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

"Supreme Court of India Resolves Complexities in Taxation of Mineral Rights" "Judgment Clarifies Legislative Powers and the Nature of Royalty in Mining Sector"

The Supreme Court of India addressed a significant dispute regarding the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States, specific...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes GST Summons Issued by DGGI Ahmedabad to Petitioners in Maharashtra for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction. Summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must be issued by an officer having jurisdiction over the place of business of the person summoned.

The petitioners, Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari, Vikas Agarwal, Yogesh Agarwal, and Mamta Gupta, are residents of Maharashtra and their place of business i...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeals by States of Karnataka and Kerala in Lottery Tax Dispute — State Legislatures Have Competence to Tax Lotteries Under Entry 62 List II. Regulatory Entry 40 List I Does Not Bar State Taxation of Lotteries Organised by Other States.

The Supreme Court considered appeals by the States of Karnataka and Kerala against judgments of their respective High Courts which had struck down sta...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...