R. R. Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Delhi High Court) 1. The taxpayers were not provided sufficient time to upload the data in TRAN-2 Form. 2. On 4 th January, 2018, when the Petitioner attempted to load TRAN-2 Form, no time had been specified under the Rules, which could be deemed to […]
Rahul Agencies Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court) 1. To issue notices to respondents wherein validity of Section 16(2)(c) read with Rule 86A are challenged. 2. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court issued Notices to Respondents including Finance ministry on Section16(2)(C) which provides that input tax credit (ITC) must be allowed to […]
Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (Umbrella Organization of Amity Group of Institutions) Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. (Delhi High Court) 1. In our view, since the statute itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the respondents/revenue cannot veer away from the same. 2. The impugned assessment order as well as the impugned […]
LAIEQ Ahmad Siddiqui Vs Goverment of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT 1. During the course of arguments, it has been informed by Mr. Kirtiman Singh that Import Duty payable on import of Amphotericin B, which is a drug being used for treatment of Mucormycosis (Black […]
Devgiri Exports Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Learned counsel relies on judgements passed by the High Court of Delhi, Madras and Bombay to submit that the faceless assessment done under section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been examined by the High Court without insisting […]
MS Lokesh Constructions P Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) 1. It is required to be noted that initially, the petitioner had declared its income as ₹ 87,55,390/-; which was revised to ₹ 73,59,500/-. 2. Via the impugned assessment order dated 07.04.2021, an addition of ₹ 13,95,890/-, has been made to the declared income of […]
The suit for malicious prosecution having been filed on 11th April 2008 which was within the period of one year, was therefore well within the limitation prescribed under The Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the suit was well within limitation, as the period of limitation under Section 3 and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1962, r/w Entry 74 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, would have ended only on 12th April 2008, which was one day after the date when the suit for malicious prosecution was presented by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
Syschem India Limited Vs Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court) 1. Hon’ble Delhi High Court issued notice in a writ petition seeking direction to revenue for processing of IGST refund on account of export of goods alongside seeking direction to revenue for payment of due interest from the date of shipping bill. 2. […]
Seema Jain Vs Joint Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Ludhiana (Punjab & Haryana High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner for offences under Section 132 (1) (b) & (c) punishable under Section 132 (1) (i) […]
Rao Computers Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) We have to find out in that context what was the intention of the parties in entering into the lease transaction. It is not the number of agreements, which are entered into between the parties which is decisive in determining the nature of transaction. What […]
