Kerala High Court proceeding finalized against the petitioner based on certain computer records cannot be challenged before High Court as alternative remedies before the Appellate Authority is available before the petitioner. Matter involving adjudication of facts is not possible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Kerala High Court directed the Centralized Processing Centre at Bengaluru to process the refund which are due to the petitioners which is not processed due to technical defect. Also directed to grant interest on account of delay in payment of refund.
Karnataka High Court held that the expenses incurred towards stamp duty in connection with issue for public subscription of shares or debentures of the company is an allowable expenditure under section 35D of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that the Adjudicating Authority is not authorized to issue show cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 for violations of provisions in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973.
Madras High Court held that the application for provisional release of goods under section 110-A of the Customs Act should be considered even during pendency of any proceedings initiated by the department.
Delhi High Court held that notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of struck off company is not void as per section 250 of Companies Act of 2013 even where a Company is dissolved in consequence to it being struck off under Section 248, it shall be deemed to continue to be in existence for the purpose of discharging its liabilities.
Allahabad High Court held that costume used in the water park would neither fall within the definition of words ‘instrument’ or ‘contrivance’ hence renting on ‘costumes’ cannot be included in the term ‘payment for admission’ as defined under Section 2(l)(iii) of The Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 and not subject to entertainment tax.
It is stated that one Mahabir Jain Shyamsukha was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 3,83,000/ on behalf of accused Raju Sakthivel. It is also stated that investigation is still going on and one of the accused is absconding, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
Rajasthan Global Securities Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 17th April, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), notice dated 28th May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act as well as the order dated 27th […]
Pooja Agarwal Vs CIT (Rajasthan High Court) When there is a direction issued by the High Court, the Tribunal is expected to follow the same in pith and substance. The direction of the High Court in remanding the matter to the Tribunal was to verify the distance of the land from the outskirts of the […]
