PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adithya Banavar (Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) The Brief facts are: Complainants went to Mantri Mall and purchased one litre water bottle of Aquafina, a 330 ml Pepsi Tin and 350 ml bottle of Nimbooz, which costs them at the rate of Rs.20, Rs.50/- and Rs.50/-, respectively in […]
CBDT notifies National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development (NBFID) under section 10(48D) of Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Notification No. 31/2022 – Income Tax Dated: 18th April, 2022. MINISTRY OF OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) New Delhi, the 18th April, 2022 Notification No. 31/2022 – Income Tax S.O. 1825(E).—In exercise […]
In order to strengthen the process of security creation and monitoring of security created, asset cover and covenants of the non-convertible securities, SEBI vide circular dated August 13, 2021 had specified the manner of recording of charges by Issuers and manner of monitoring by Debenture Trustees (DTs), Credit Rating Agencies, etc.
Applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The statement of the applicant under Section 70 of the C.G.S.T Act, 2017 is self-implicatory which was extracted by coercion and made under duress.
To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order dated 29.03.2022 made by State Tax Officer, Ghatak 1, Ahmedabad cancelling the Goods and Service Tax Registration of petitioner, and direct restoration or revival of registration of the petitioner firm;
Tribunal held that the foreign service provider being not covered under the term ‘Telegraph Authority’, the service provided by them will not fall under the definition of ‘Telecommunication Service.
The assessee categorically denied receipt of rent over and above what is reflected in its books of accounts. Nothing has been brought on record to contradict the version of the assessee either by the learned AO or by the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, hold that rental income which has not been received by the assessee cannot be brought to tax.
Gulmuhar Silk Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Though it is the petitioner’s case that the impugned order is erroneous on facts, yet this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would have ample opportunity during the course of proceedings before different statutory forums to show that the finding of fact arrived at […]
J J Patel & Brothers Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is that whether the Appellant are liable to pay Service tax on reimbursement of electricity charges received from the service recipient M/s Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. We find that identical issue involving under the identical contract has been decided by […]
Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the facts of the case as it is a case of refund of penalty paid by the appellant where he has considered that it is a case of refund of duty. As facts of the case are crystal clear […]
