Nagpur Municipal Corporation to ensure that, no feeding of street dogs takes place at any place except at the own place of the dog feeder or in the dog shelter homes or any other authorised place and we also direct him to impose appropriate penalty for any breach of these directions, which penalty may not be more than of Rs.200/- for every breach as per the resolution already passed in this behalf by Nagpur Municipal Corporation.
Shankar Nagesh Mutkiri Vs Reserve Bank of India (Supreme Court of India) Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to take steps to regulate or disable unauthorized money lending platforms; to frame guidelines to ensure oversight over digital money lenders and for […]
Abhay Trading Pvt. Ltd Vs National Aluminium Company Ltd (Orissa High Court) 1. The challenge in the present petition is to continuance of the Arbitrator presently seized of adjudicating the dispute between the parties in view of declaration made by such Arbitrator on 9th September, 2021 that his younger brother was at that point in […]
Bipinchandra Purshotamdas Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT find that the assessees explanation for source of cash deposits of Rs.6.00 lakhs in his Bank of India account, which is in dispute before us, as being out of his share in the sale of land, jointly owned along with members of his family, is duly and […]
Marudhar Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Short issue required to be decided in this matter is as to whether such reversal of credit, either by payment of 6% in terms of Rule 6 or by debiting the same from the Cenvat credit account, would result to satisfying the condition of notification No. […]
Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated cancelling GST registration as well as order dismissing appeal filed by petitioner. In this case Assessing Officer has suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy.
Valecha Investments Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) HC held that mere default in payment of tax, unless such default arises out of circumstances which has the effect of assessee defeating payment, the expression ‘willful attempt’ cannot be imported to mean failure to pay tax. It is also held in paragraph 10 that mere […]
Metadin Mali Vs C.S.T. Service Tax Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We have carefully gone through the relevant contract entered into by Appellant with M/s Pino Bisazza Glass Pvt. Ltd and find that M/s. Pino has entered into agreement with the appellant for packing and salvaging activities. The appellant was paid for carrying out such activities on […]
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) It is observed that reply filed by the petitioner to the notice has not been taken into consideration especially in view of the fact that such reply was filed on 31.03.2022 and on the same day the impugned order came to be passed on 10.41 p.m. […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs Pidilite Industries Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) It is seen that the first appellate authority has interpreted the time limit in section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 according to the letter of the law which mandates liability of interest for any delay in sanction of refund beyond three months from date of claim. […]
