PCIT Vs Indian Additives Ltd (Madras High Court) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue challenging the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench ‘A’, Chennai in I.T.A.No.835/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. By order dated 23.01.2017, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case […]
Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu Vs IBBI (Bombay High Court) It can be noticed that under Section 435 of the Companies Act, Special Court, comprising of Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge, was in place since 2013 and it retained its jurisdiction to try the offences under the Companies Act. Amendment of 2017, for the first time brought […]
Assistant Commissioner Vs C.P. Agro Industries (Rajasthan High Court) The Tax Board has neither recorded any cogent finding on merits of the case before setting aside the penalty nor it has considered the provisions of section 61 of the RVAT Act, 2003, more particularly, when the fact was proved before all the Authorities that Forms-C […]
Tata Sons Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court find substance in the submission of Mr.Pardiwalla that the case at hand is nothing but an instance of mere change of opinion. A bare perusal of the reasons indicates that the exercise was infuenced by a mere change of opinion. To start with, it […]
Satya Narayan Banik Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) This Court is of the view that the object and purposes of Section 164 and 167, as amended is to ensure probity and the highest standard of governance in Companies both public and private. A failure to file balance sheet and the annual returns for […]
CIT Vs Roots Multiclean Ltd. (Madras High Court) It is abundantly clear from sub-section (2) of Section 80IA that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 801A has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab […]
Satish Kansal Vs Synergy Tradeco NV (Delhi High Court) Merely because there is a dispute between the buyer and the seller with regard to the contract of supply of goods, that cannot be ground for interfering with the LC. Therefore, the courts have recognized only two exceptions to the aforesaid principle where courts would pass […]
The Court has held that even though there might be no reciprocity between India and another country under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, the notarial acts of the Notaries in the foreign country could be given legal recognition by the courts and authorities in India.
Writ applicant could be said to be entitled to claim the refund of the IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger as there is no specific supplier who can claim the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules as Input Tax Credit is distributed by the input service distributor.
In the instant case, admittedly there has been no provisional release of the seized goods. Further extension of six months with the reasoned order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs also is completely missing. The period of six months from the date of signature expired on 03.10.2019.
