Laxmi & Anr Vs Shyam Pratap & Anr. (Delhi High Court) The petitioners have claimed maintenance under the Act 1956. Section 19 of the Act provides for maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law provided he has inherited some estate of her husband. The appellant has failed to disclose […]
Change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
The case of the assessee is that the payments were covered under clause (k) of Rule 6DD, which provides that no disallowance will be made where the payment is made by any person to his agent who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such persons.
Whether any addition can be made and confirmed in the hands of assessee on account of cash deposit of Rs.2,30,000- during demonetization
Mismatch in income returned in ITR and FORM 26AS is not covered within purview of Explanation (a) to section 139(9) (Defective Return)
Manish Aggarwal Vs RCI Industries And Technologies Ltd. (Delhi High Court) In the present case, quite clearly, the learned Sole Arbitrator has declined to grant the interlocutory order sought by the appellants in exercise of his discretionary power under section 17 of the A&C Act. Has this discretionary power been exercised in a manner that […]
Object to develop training and research centre to facilitate skill development to entire chain of work force engaged at various levels in garment and textile industry entitle for registration under provisions of Section 12AA.
Condoning delay of 3330 Days HC held that a party should not suffer due to inaction of advocate & matter should be decided on merits
PCIT Vs . Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Issues (a) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in holding that in the revision proceedings the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show-cause notice […]
Brose India Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Denial to avail CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid during GST regime under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on import of services by the Appellant manufacturing company and its confirmation by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune vide above referred […]
