L. Ponnammal Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) By this writ petition a challenge is made to Sections 128 to 146 of the Finance Act, 2021 , with an alternative prayer to declare Section 5(9) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and Sections 128 to 130 and Sections 132 to 146 of the […]
Ems Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of CGST (Gujarat High Court) It is not in dispute that one year period has elapsed since GST Electronic credit ledger came to be blocked. Rule 86A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 empowers the authority to block the electronic credit ledger if the authority has reason […]
Poorti Rent a Car and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Provisions of the SARFAESI Act can be applied even in respect of loan agreements entered into before such enactment was brought into force, we see nothing in any law to hold that the provisions thereof can never be resorted […]
Delhi High Court ruling on Budweiser trademark infringement. Defendants restrained from using recycled Budweiser bottles for BLACK FORT and POWER COOL beers.
Gondia Beedi Leaves Contractors Association Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) It is admitted that the re-sale of Tendu leaves, as it is without any process, after purchase from the Forest Department would amount to trading which does not qualify for exemption under sub-section (1A) of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. It […]
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sunil Majhi (Orissa High Court) HC held that no logic is there in the contention of the Appellant that because the accused is involved in more than one accident at different points of time, the claim of compensation contemplated under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act would be nullified […]
Mayur Batra Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Petitioner states that before levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c), the replies of the petitioner filed on 17th December, 2021 and reiterated as well as uploaded on 22nd and 27th January, 2022 were not considered by the respondents. He further states that the petitioner has not been granted […]
Madras HC holds that recoveries under Section 79 of the CGST Act from the customers of the taxpayer, during the course of investigation is pre-mature. Calls such measure as ingenious way of creating liquidity crunch.
The pertinent assertion of learned counsel Shri Gargieya is that the assessing authority could not have adopted the procedure provided under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment of the petitioner because such action was taken on the basis of facts revealed to the assessing authority during the assessment of DRA Group at Ahmedabad and the proceedings, if any, would have to be conducted under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
Anil Tambi challenges income tax assessment in Rajasthan HC, citing lack of effective hearing. Stay granted on the impugned order. Case ongoing.
