Medicos Legal Action Group Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) We see no reason to hold that merely because of enactment of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 upon repeal of the 1986 Act as well as the parliamentary debates referred to by the petitioning Trust, the efficacy of the law laid down in the decision […]
Allahabad HC reviews Ambuj Foods reassessment notice for AY 2013-14, alleging routing funds as share premium through shell companies.
Samet Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Bombay High Court) It is Petitioner’s case that the same issue which is mentioned in the reasons for reopening was a subject matter of consideration during the assessment proceedings and the assessment order dated 20th December, 2010 in fact even discussed this item. Therefore, reopening is based on change […]
Nirman Overseas Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi (Delhi High Court) AO issued the impugned order dated 16th March, 2022 denying the immunity from penalty and prosecuting the Petitioner on the ground that since no order under Section 270AA had been passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the statutory timeline, it may […]
In our opinion, a petition for direction to State Govt for issuing a notification declaring any monument to be of national importance cannot be issued as it is the matter to be decided by the competent authority under the aforesaid Act.
ATC Tires Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) (Madras High Court) The purpose of granting refund on zero rated supply is to ensure that the exports are competitive in the international market and such transactions are not burdened with taxes. The export by the petitioner from its SEZ unit in […]
PCIT Vs Anindita Steels Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) In the case at hand the Tribunal rightly pointed out that the ground on which notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued was identical to the reason for reopening the assessment earlier. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that no independent enquiry was conducted by the PCIT […]
Sanjay Ghiya Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court) Rajasthan High Court held that CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Or COMPANY SECRETARIES Or COST ACCOUNTANTS are authorised to present case on behalf of applicant or appellant or respondent before Appellate Tribunal or the Regulatory Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be. HC held that Respondent” […]
Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The details of the tax evasion of the respective accused arraigned in the complaint, reveal that the total tax evasion of the applicant’s Company Heugo Metal is shown as Rs.4,51,05,130/- which is less than 5 crores. It is further revealed that the tax liability of […]
Domain Name Registrars by the application of the algorithm derived by whom the infringing domain names were becoming available to prospective registrants, would themselves be infringers, within the meaning of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, and liable in that regard.
