Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) We are prima facie of the view that the Revenue Authorities committed serious error. Against the total demand arising out of the order of assessment of Rs. 205 crore, the Assessing Officer has already recovered a total of Rs. 140 crores by now through different means. […]
M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs ITSC (P&H High Court) For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. an assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The assessee is entitled to proceed on the basis that till the service of the assessment order, […]
In re Sanofi India Limited (GST AAAR Maharashtra) ITC eligible on Shubh Labh Trade Loyalty Program it is manifest that the Appellant’s act of providing the promotional goods and services under the Shubh Labh Trade Loyalty Program is certainly not an act of generosity, as the Appellant is not giving these goods and services to […]
Regarding Appointment of CAA by DGRI vide Notification No. 58/2019-Customs (N.T./CAA/DRI) dated the 21st October, 2019. Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Notification No. 58/2019-Customs (N.T./CAA/DRI) New Delhi, dated the 21st October, 2019 S.O. 3808(E).— In pursuance of notification No. 60/2015-Customs […]
It cannot be said that the shares of the profit in AOP of members is determinate or known. Thus on cumulative consideration of all clause the three agreement entered into it is crystal clear that shares members of AOP are indeterminate and unknown, therefore the provisions of sub section (1) to Section 167B of the Act are squarely applicable and we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.
CESTAT Mumbai has allowed refund of Cenvat credit on export of Scientific & Technical Consultancy services. Considering the pricing method, it held that Rule 3 and not Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 was applicable.
M/s Livguard Energy Technologies (P) Ltd Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) Uttarakhand High Court has declined to accede to petitioner’s request for release of vehicle and goods seized on merely furnishing an indemnity bond. It observed that it would be inappropriate to issue a direction contrary to provisions of Section 129 of the […]
Stay updated on Ministry of Finance’s declaration regarding derivatives under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Learn more about the implications and significance.
this modern legislation is working towards bringing a paradigm shift in the manner of resolution of distressed firms in the country, it is important to note that the practice of recovery of debt from the person of the debtor has been a common practice since the inception of insolvency law.
With the introduction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the consolidation of fragmented laws relating to reorganisation in distressed situations, insolvency resolution to reconstitute the company’s promoters, novate the loan agreements, settle dues of workmen and employees and pay the financial creditors (FCs) and operational creditors (OCs) and provides for liquidation relating to corporate persons.
