whether the Government of Orissa in its Department of Excise can insist on furnishing Bank Guarantee, instead of Solvency certificate, for grant or renewal of Excise Licenses in respect of liquor?
Udaipur Cement Works Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a Public Limited Company, having its place of business at Rajasthan, has prayed for the following reliefs; “(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ […]
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of investment made in the house property in USA?
The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to assail the impugned order by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. Consequently, the petitioner is relegated to file an appeal before the appellate authority.
Kerala High Court clarifies the time frame for best judgment assessment under GST. Details of the Amani Machine Centre vs. State Tax Officer case.
Trivedi Ventures LLP Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Plea of Petitioner was to enable the petitioners to avail Tansitional Credit in Electronic Credit Ledger. It was also prayed that the respondents should give effect to Form GST Tran-1 that had been manually submitted to the respondent-department to avail relevant Legitimate Input Tax Credit. […]
Whether the public interest litigation (PIL) challenging non-inclusion of advocates in the definition of the word ‘professionals’ under the MSMED Act, 2006 will be entertained by High Court?
The issue under consideration is Whether compensation paid to earlier buyer to cancel the agreement is deductible expenditure u/s 48 for calculation of Capital Gains?
Cooner Institute of Health Care And Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court Direction To Release Refund Withheld Without Valid Reasons And Based On Flawed Assumption only ground for withholding refund is that since case of the petitioner has been selected for scrutiny for AY 2018-19, under Section 143(2) of […]
Madras High Court upheld the requirement which mandates that the IP should pay a fee calculated at 0.25% of the professional fee earned for services rendered as an IP in the preceding financial year to the IBBI.
