Assessee could not be compelled to wait for eternity to agitate its claim seeking refund under the provisions of GST of the amount to which it was entitled to under the statute and also blocking its funds affecting its cash flows, merely because of existence of (non functional) alternate forum/remedy on paper, by not invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court ruling on advocates as power of attorney holders. Amarjeet Singh Sahni’s dual role clarified. Settlement reached in property dispute. Details of MoU considered.
Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs. Ravi Chadha and Ors. (Delhi High Court) Stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is available against infringement of registered trade mark and not against passing off In the matter of Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs. Ravi Chadha and Ors. [CM (M) 428/2021, CMAPPL. 20526/2021] dated 06th August 2021, […]
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal, erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) by deleting the addition of Rs.11,39,00,000/-made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by disregarding that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the share applicants in question ?
Delay in filing return was condoned as CBDT, in virtually passing an assessment order on the return of income of assessee had traversed beyond the scope of its power to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(b) and had acted contrary to the provisions of Section 119(2)(b)
Loss suffered by an assessee on account of foreign exchange difference as on the date of balance sheet was an item of expenditure under Section 37(1) as the view of AO and CIT (A) that the investments were made on, from the FNCR loans was not based on any supporting material and was only a presumption.
Punjab & Haryana High Court modifies conditions for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in Amandeep Singh Bhui vs Inspector CGST case.
DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Facts- An application seeking ad interim ex parte injunction was filed by the plaintiffs against Google India, Google LLC and Just Dial restraining them from using or permitting third parties to use plaintiffs’ registered trademark AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS or DRS LOGISTICS either […]
ADIA files ROI in India disclosing income falling within the scope of section 5(2). However, in view of exemption available in terms of India-UAE DTAA, ADIA reports NIL taxable income. AAR denies the benefit of India-UAE DTAA benefit to ADIA in respect of income accruing on the investment made or proposed to be made by Green Maiden A 2013 Trust which was established by ADIA and ETL.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petitions by observing that question of looking into the records, going into the facts and examining mismatch, this exercise can be done by the Appellate Authority only. Therefore, petitions shall avail alternative remedy.
