Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited Vs The State Bank of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Facts- The petitioners obtained loan from the SBI. The account became a Non-Performing Asset where under the total amount of Rs. 10,36,25,840 was to be paid. As the petitioners had defaulted, the SBI, prior to sanctioning OTS, on 27.02.2019 had […]
Hasmukh Prajapati Vs Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) Facts- There was a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent with regard to payments in respect of an apartment. When the matter reached the stage of Arbitration, the Petitioner claimed that, as per the agreement, in case of any dispute arising between the parties, […]
Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs Girish Dave, Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) (Bombay high court) Facts- The petitioner/assessee is a public limited company and an engineering conglomerate and carries out varied business activities through independent divisions. The petitioner had entered into a contract with the ONGC, whereunder the petitioner was awarded the contract for survey […]
It is the common experience that Commercial Tax office, is considered to be one of the the hubs of corruption. Poor and gullible drivers would fell prey for the illegal demands day in and day out. Only when the greed is too high, some cases reach the higher ups or the Lokayuktha.
Held that the Revenue has failed to comply to the direction of the Bench in furnishing any report from the AO as to in what manner, the investigation carried out by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata and report of SEBI has any link with the transactions carried out by the assessee, we allow the claim of Long Term Capital Gain on account of sale of shares of M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. and consequently the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act.
DRI officers have not been entrusted the functions under the Customs Act by the Government under section 6 and hence cannot perform such functions. SCN in this case was not issued by ‘the proper officer‘, i.e., the officer who had assessed the Bills of Entry in the first place.
Held that section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Antidumping Duty is to be construed as Customs duty and therefore in view of the amendment that was carried out in 2009 all the provisions of Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder are squarely applicable to Antidumping Duty and as such in case of warehoused goods duty applicable as on the date of clearance from warehouse is to be recovered in terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, we find that Ld. Commissioner has correctly held that Antidumping Duty is payable by the appellants.
Held that the carry forward of business loss cannot be denied to the assessee merely on the ground that the statutory audit/tax audit was not completed within the prescribed period.
Dhanlaxmi Chandu Vs Town Planning and Acquisition Officer (Bombay High Court) Facts- It is alleged by Samina Arif Khan @ Dhanlaxmi Chandrakant Devrukhkar (‘Samina’) to place the Intervention Application for urgent hearing and orders since according to Samina, Advocate Shri Rohan Barge and Notary – Shri S.M. Naqvi alongwith an unknown person have filed Writ […]
Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject, it is well-settled that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities.
