Delhi High Court held that section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003 governs the tariff rates of electricity based which is determined through transparent process and hence no interference is required.
Explore Delhi High Court’s ruling in CIT vs Ricardo U.K. Limited. No profit attribution if commission paid to Ricardo India is adjusted against PE profit. Detailed analysis and implications.
Delhi High Court held that as the medical facilities available at jail dispensary not adequate for medical treatment of the applicant, the applicant is allowed to get required physiotherapy treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
When the accused was not produced before a Court on the date of hearing and no production warrant was issued for the said accused on the same date of hearing but was issued subsequently, the custody of the accused would not be in continuum and for the break period, it might be illegal.
Explore legal nuances of a disputed Income Tax notice in Subramaniam Rohini vs ITO case. Learn about digital signatures, communication timelines, and relevant court judgments
Bombay High Court orders de novo assessment in Pravir Polymers vs. ITO case, citing Rule 46A violation. Get insights on S. 254(2) rectification and due process.
Gujarat High Court rules in Amit Hospital Pvt Ltd vs PCIT, stating that Section 119(2)(b) applications can’t be rejected based on vague reasons for Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner asserts that the draft assessment order, a prerequisite under Section 144B(xxi), was not provided, depriving them of the opportunity to contest and resulting in a substantial demand.
Explore the legal intricacies of pre-deposit for appeal under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/BGST Act in Flipkart vs. State of Bihar. Learn about ECL vs. ECRL utilization.
No person should accept any loan or deposit of a sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Where a person advance cash more than Rs.20,000/- to another person, restriction on cash advances was, in fact, on the taker and not on the person who made an advance.
