Vinayagamoorthy Tyres Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) In the legal case of Vinayagamoorthy Tyres Vs Deputy State Tax Officer, the Madras High Court delivered a substantial and impactful judgment that carries significant implications for tax matters. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, including its background, key arguments, and the […]
Learn how to minimize TDS on FD interest and save taxes with tax-saving fixed deposits. Discover strategies, TDS thresholds, and benefits of these investments.
Explore a bank manager’s unique take on customer service, blending business development and career progression. Discover dual perspectives that brought laughter to a conference.
Discover how annuities can help accumulate retirement wealth. Explore their benefits, risks, and various types to make informed investment decisions.
In present facts of the case, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that when Government of India had itself exempted the Petitioner from any obligation to verify the Interest Subsidy Schemes received from any Bank other than the Petitioner/Bank itself then the Petitioner cannot be hold responsible.
In present facts of the case the Appeal was under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in Consumer Complaint No. 06/2011, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) deleted the additions/ disallowances on the basis of information/ evidences filed before him without providing any opportunity to AO is in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A).
Bombay High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings. Once assessment order is passed, DRP has not power to pass any direction.
In present facts of the case, the present Revision Petition was filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 28.07.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that the sale proceeds of the seized vehicle by the Respondent would be calculated at the depreciation rate @ 40% of the actual invoice value of the Motor Vehicle.
