NCLT Kolkata held that application filed by resolution professional of BKM Industries Limited (Corporate Debtor) for approval of resolution plan stand approved.
Explore advantages and disadvantages of various tax payment methods, including online, over-the-counter, mobile banking, and net banking.
DCIT Vs HES Infra Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad) The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the agreement was not entered between the assessee and the Government / Statutory Government and there was a violation laid down by the statute and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction The assessee […]
Delhi High Court held that a penalty of revocation of license for failing to collect the KYC forms unjustly restricts the Appellant’s ability to undertake the business CHA for the entire life. Accordingly, revocation of customs broker license set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act are effective only from 1st April 2014. Accordingly, the same are not applicable when part payment was received in 2010.
Calcutta High Court held that order of acquittal set aside as recorded on account of misreading of evidence. Evidence on record sufficient to hold respondent liable for committing offence u/s. 138 of N.I. Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act merely based on statement of the key person which was retracted subsequently unsustainable as genuineness, identity and creditworthiness proved.
ITAT Delhi held that the payment of assessee made in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act is not eligible for benefit of exceptions envisages under Rules 6DD(f) in absence of any evidence supporting identity and genuineness of the supplier.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that when the agreement between the service provider and recipient is for a particular job and not for supply of man power, the activity cannot be classified under ‘Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’.
The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) against the Order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow.
