CESTAT Chennai held that demand of service tax on amount received by cricket player R. Ashwin from M/s. India Cements Ltd. under IPL Playing Contract is unsustainable in law.
Madras High Court held that circulars dated 16.03.2021, 05.08.2021 and 01.04.2021 mandating compliance of provisions of section 194A and 194N of the Income Tax Act by co-operative societies cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Explore Income Tax Department’s advisory on reducing cash transactions. Learn about societal, individual, and national factors driving the push towards electronic transactions. Dive into the provisions, penalties, and incentives aimed at creating a transparent and accountable financial ecosystem.
Bombay High Court held that an agreement for providing manpower to perform maintenance services is not a contract of sale but is a contract for service under the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
NCLT Delhi held that an amalgamation of a Sole Proprietorship Firm with a Company is not permissible under the law. Thus, Merger and Amalgamation of sole proprietorship firm and company is not possible u/s 232 of Companies Act, 2013.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of change in law/ facts, advance ruling pronounced by the authority shall be binding on the application and also on the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs and the customs authorities subordinate to him.
Bombay High Court held that action of the department in selling the gold during the pendency of the appeal is illegal and unconstitutional.
Delhi High Court held that the period of limitation for cases covered u/s. 49(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 would be six months from the date on which the stamp paper was spoiled. Accordingly, refund of 90% stamp duty directed.
Karnataka High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be in the nature of review and accordingly, the material as has come to light in the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008- 2009 cannot be a sufficient ground to resort to reassessment proceedings.
Explore the adjudication order under Section 454 against Tulsi Extrusions Ltd for non-compliance with Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. Detailed analysis, findings, and penalties.
