Though this issue is no longer res integra in view of catena of judicial decisions of the highest court of the Country, the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again considered this matter when the Punjab & Haryana High court relegated the assessee to alternative remedy in a challenge made to jurisdiction of the revisional authority to reopen proceedings u/s 34 of the VAT Act.
K.L. Suneja Vs Dr. (Mrs.) Manjeet Kaur Monga (D) (Supreme Court of India) An interesting question arose in this case where an apartment buyer was returned the money paid by her by way of a Pay-order by the developer instead of giving the flat. This was disputed by the flat allottee as she was willing […]
The petitioner clients are strictly complying with the rules and regulations of the aforesaid COTP Act 2003 and other applicable statues and rules. They only permit use of tobacco, nicotine and herbal products in the hookahs Since there is no law banning the use of tobacco, nicotine and herbal products in bars and restaurants
Rupahali Sarees Private Limited Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) Sub-The petition in this case filed to challenge inaction on part of CIT (Appeals) in deciding the appeal against order u/s 263 which was filed on 27-1-2020 even though almost 3 years had passed. Petitioner submits that in spite of repeated remainders though almost […]
Surendra Kumar Singhi Vs Registrar of Companies, West Bengal & Anr (Calcutta High Court) Sub- What is the criteria for determining whether the director is an additional director or independent director? Also whether an additional director is liable for prosecution regarding the non reporting of fullest information and explanation in the Board’s report on comments […]
Dilip Bhikhalal Desai Vs DCIT (Calcutta High Court) Justice Shekhar B Saraf in this order was dealing with challenge to the order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148 dated 29th July,2022 which was passed by the AO for the AY 2015-16 admittedly relying on the Instruction No 01/2022 dated 11th May, 2022 and Appellant argued […]
An interesting question arose in this case where the Appellant and Lenovo contended that the ADP imported by it was classifiable under the entry 84715000 as against the department’s classification under the entry 84713010 since they could not be said to be portable.
SC ruling on Whether settled Indian citizens in Sikkim before it became an Indian State w.e.f 26-04-1975 are eligible for exemption u/s 10(26AAA) of Income-tax Act,1961
Whether special road tax charged by State of Himachal Pradesh for motor vehicles violating rules is in the nature of penalty and thus against competence of State under Constitution of India?
Supreme Court of India in this case was considering the meaning of the term diversification when the appellant in this case set up machinery for manufacture of Double LIP DRY BLEND CROWN CORK as against SPUN LINE CROWN CORK which was being manufactured earlier and contended that it was diversification to be eligible for exemption.
