Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the order of learned CIT(A) it is evident that it is assessee’s contention that the amount received is actually arrears of interest. Hence, the sum cannot be considered as cash credit. The learned CIT(A) despite noting these facts has mechanically confirmed Assessing Officer’s order without any […]
Intelsat Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that appellant being a resident of USA is covered by the beneficial provisions of DTAA between India and USA and accordingly, could not be taxed under the provisions of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the issues involved in […]
Net Direct Tax collections for the Financial Year 2022-23 grown at over 45% Net Direct Tax collections for the F.Y. 2022-23 continue to grow at a robust pace further fortifying the economic revival Gross Tax collections for the Financial Year 2022-23 grown at about 40% Advance Tax collections for F.Y. 2022-23 stand at Rs. 1,01,017 […]
Commissioner of CGST Vs Narbada Industries (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) That no refund can be ordered against a party, if that party has not been unjustly enriched or when it has acquired the benefit lawfully. Since the assessee have got the benefit of refund lawfully under the prevailing law, they cannot be directed to […]
Restrained the defendants from offering or advertising any goods or services, using or registering corporate names, domain names or pages bearing the trademarks BURGER KING, BK and/ or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks.
Final order in the re-assessment proceedings is yet to be passed. Hence, the writ petition itself was premature and no relief could be granted thereof.
The compensation for medical expenses is a matter of reimbursement and hence once the insurance company has chosen to compensate the victim of road accident for medical expenses, the same cannot be once again claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act
The Arbitral Tribunal had thus, articulated the terms of appointment unequivocally and unambiguously. It had made it clear to the parties that its appointment and the proceedings before them would not be governed by ICADR Rules. Accordingly, arbitral tribunal is not bound by ICADR rules for fixation of the fees
It was clear, therefore, that till such time the purchase order was issued pursuant to such acceptance of the offer made by the Petitioner, there was no completed ‘contract’. Consequently, Clause-6.34.1 would not get attracted.
Commissioner of CE & ST Vs Maneesh Exports (CESTAT Mumbai) The appellants have consumed the duty free raw material for achieving the export obligations on yearly basis and on whole as per the LOP issued to them and amended from time to time. No evidence has been produced by the revenue that the terms of […]
