Dee Vee Projects Ltd. Vs Government of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Order not specifying amount to the extent to which the ECL has been blocked is Illegal A careful perusal of Rule 86-A would show that there is no specific mention therein about the blocking of the ECL and what is stated is that the […]
As held by Allahabad High Court in Mon Mohan Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, it is concluded that law prevailing on the date of issuance of notice under section 148 has to be applied.
Messers Filatex India Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The short point for our consideration as on date is whether the assertion on the part of the writ applicant that it is entitled to claim the refund in accordance with the formula as provided under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 89 of the […]
UOI Vs Aps Structures Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) It is well settled that recourse to Section 14 of the A&C Act is not available in respect of any challenge to the arbitrator under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act. Such a recourse is permissible only in the event the arbitrator is ineligible by virtue […]
State of Jharkhand Vs Information Commissioner (Jharkhand High Court) The provision of compensation has been provided under the provision of Section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act, 2005 by which a Public Authority is required to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. Since this Court has answered the issue about distinction in between […]
Kishan Kothwal Vs ITO (Telangana High Court) HC held that The parameters for making addition under Section 68 of the Act and under Section 69A of the Act, though may appear to be similar, however, is not so; therefore, addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act would stand on a different pedestal. […]
Hazel Mercantile Ltd Vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs (Gujarat High Court) At this stage, Mr. Nankani made two fold fervent appeals. He made a request that the earlier bond, which was furnished by his client to the respondent No.1 should be returned as the writ applicant has now been asked to furnish a fresh bond. […]
RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
HC held that the service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry 13 of Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.09.2017 namely ‘Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence’ issued under the Act. The petitioner is held entitled to benefit of exemption notification.
Bombay High Court condones 8-year delay in filing appeals against penalty orders. Ruling benefits assessees facing prosecution after penalty payment.
