National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore Educational Institute would also not fall within the purview of it.
In present facts of the case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have observed that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. Therefore, the complaint against Insurance Company is maintainable.
F.No. 251Committees-1/GST Council-Part-1 GST Council Secretariat 5th Floor, Tower-II Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi Dated: 17-10-2022 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Partial Modification of the Membership of the Law Committee (LC) In partial modification to the Office Memorandum of even no. dated 29th May 2017, 30th November 2018, 22nd January 2019. 05th March 2019, 20th August 2019, […]
CESTAT Hyderabad held that CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on premium for medical insurance of employees and their families is eligible.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as per Accounting Standard 11 premium on forward exchange contracts is to be amortized as expense means writing it off as revenue expenditure in the profit and loss account.
Fixed deposits not only offer a safe and assured way of earning returns but when invested correctly can also help you save on taxes. Read on to know how.
Madras High Court held that proceedings initiated under section 129 of the CGST Act invalid as detention order and notice was not served within the prescribed time limit.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT Credit of steel items used for the purpose of setting up of coal washery plant is available applying the user test principle.
CESTAT Mumbai held that used mild steel (MS) plates industrial significance only as waste and scrap which is the feedstock for melting in furnaces and hence classifiable as waste and scrap.
In present facts of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3,31,000/- by the AO, while considering the fact that the family members of the assessee were earning (but were below taxable limits), and the deposits made were from the past savings and earnings of the entire family which were pooled together.
