Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appears on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned counsel for the appellants is not present in the Court today. It is stated that he is out of station. This is no ground to seek adjournment. We therefore reject the request for adjournment. We have asked the learned counsel to argue the matter. He submits that he does not know anything about the case.
Union of India Vs Mr. Mukesh Maneklal Choksi (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) Since Respondent No 1, Mr Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Statutory Auditor , colluded with the Chairman/Director of R-2 company and has given a false Audit certificate relating to the Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet of the R-2 company, without even […]
In re Ms. Opto Electronic Factory (GST AAR Uttarakhand) Classification and Rate of applicable GST on various equipment manufactured for being used exclusively in various armoured Tanks. We observe that the products manufactured and reapired by the applicant i.e. ‘Sight Vision Equipment’ is nothing but an ‘optical instruments’ used in various types of armoured tanks […]
In re Ms. Elefo Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Uttarakhand) In the present application, applicant has sought advance ruling for the classification and rate of GST applicable on supply of the products i.e. Anaerobic Microbial Inoculums (AMI)’ manufactured by them. AAR held that that the products i.e. Anaerobic Microbial Inoculums (AMI) will be classified under […]
I find that pendency of the serious criminal proceeding against the applicant, as noted above, adversely impacts his reputation and makes him a person who is not ‘fit and proper’ to be eligible as a registered valuer.
K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) In the present case, however, we are concerned with the provisions of I&B Code dealing with the resolution process. The dispensation provided in the I&B Code is entirely different. In terms of Section 30 of the I&B Code, the decision is taken collectively […]
Merely because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act are invoked.
The learned AR also accepted the legal position that mandatory pre-deposit can be made through the CGST Credit. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that the objection raised by the Registry is not tenable
Smt. Roopa Vs ITO (ITAT Bengalore) ITAT held that assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54/54F of the Act in respect of 2 flats in the same residential building complex is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. G. […]
M/s Eni India Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) learned AO had taken a view that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC vs CIT & Anr. the nature of activities involved under the contract including the sale of services of HOEC are covered by the provisions of Section […]
