The Court held that the Bank could not have unilaterally changed the quantified OTS amount to Rs.50,50,000/- after correctly quantifying the OTS amount to be Rs.36,50,000/-. The same would be against the principles of natural justice, and also runs contrary to the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
In the present case, the AO, apart from relying upon some opinion of rent from property broker firms and websites, does not appear to have made any independent inquiry on the adequacy of the rent being charged by the respondent/assessee from Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf).
MSL Group India & Anr. Vs Eknath Narayan Shelar (Bombay High Court) Re-structuring of the organisation or resizing of the labour force does not give liberty to an employer to dispense with the services of all the employees and recruit fresh hands in their place – Bombay High Court It is an admitted position that […]
Nortel Networks India International INC. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC (Delhi High Court) 1. By way of the present writ petition, Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondent No. 2 to dispose of within four weeks, Petitioner’s Rectification Application dated 14th May, 2020 granting the consequential TDS credit of Rs.5,51,15,908 due to the petitioner […]
Nokia India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Court finds that CBDT instruction No. 2/2013 [F. No. 225/76/2013/ITA.II] dated 5th July, 2013 and Letter [F. No.225/148/2015-ITA-II], dated 5th July, 2015 stipulates that the Assessing Officers must strictly follow the time limit of six months provided under Section 154(8) of the Act in disposing of […]
Cheil India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that while filing the return of income, the Petitioner had claimed credit of TDS amounting to INR 32,14,36,286/-, whereas while processing the return, the CPC granted credit of only INR 1,83,37,658/-. He points out that the TDS was duly supported […]
Smruti Ranjan Mohanty Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court) Bail cannot be refused as an indirect method of punishing the accused person before he is convicted. Furthermore, it has to be borne in mind that there is as such no justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing […]
Macrotech Developers Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The question is whether there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of Assessment Year 2012-13. It is not the case that there is failure on the part of the assessee to make […]
Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. And Anr Vs UOI (Guwahati High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of GAUHATI HIGH COURT Heard Dr. A Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H Gupta, learned CGC for the respondent No.1 being the Union of India and Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 […]
Mahle Anand Termal Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) In this case petitioner made inadvertent errors in GSTR-1 form wherein GSTN number of the recipient of goods was mentioned incorrectly. Leading to denial of credit to the recipient. Time limit for rectification expired. Supplier made representations, however, remained unanswered. The Hon’ble […]
