ITAT Held that addition on the basis of the opening balance of unsecured loan treating the same as current year transaction by invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable.
Held that payment made for usage of rights for the internet and telecom facility doesn’t fall in the nature of work defined u/s 194C and hence TDS not deductible.
Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar Vs Laxmikant Govind Joshi (Bombay High Court) Held that the provisions of section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are directory and not mandatory as a discretion was conferred upon the Court, to either grant or not to grant interim compensation. Facts- The respondent/Complainant filed proceedings u/s. 138 of NI Act, […]
Held that the liability under Section 138/141 of the NI Act arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed, and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company.
Held that penalty u/s 271F leviable as the assessee being a co-operative bank failed to furnish annual information annual information return
Held that the provision under Section 60(1) makes it clear that the residence of Personal Guarantor is not taken into consideration when insolvency resolution proceedings against the Personal Guarantor are initiated.
Held that intention of the parties to have their disputes arbitrated and that the same is paramount even where the dispute resolution clauses are vaguely worded or where there is an ambiguity in choice of the mechanism to be adopted.
Supreme Court Held that right to damage itself is extinguished, provisions of the Limitation Act have no application.
Held that there is no infringement of copyright as some contents are bound to be similar as teaching given in the Holy Books Quran and Hadees and other religious text related to Islam religion are bound to be same in all books which are about teaching on Islam.
Held that Government is vicariously liable for negligence on the part of the Government hospital. Court ordered lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs payable to the petitioner.
