No person should accept any loan or deposit of a sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Where a person advance cash more than Rs.20,000/- to another person, restriction on cash advances was, in fact, on the taker and not on the person who made an advance.
The respondents contended that the petitioner, being a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, should exclusively resort to the statutory remedies provided by the Act, and arbitration should not be permissible. This article explores the court’s reasoning and its impact on the dispute resolution landscape.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in Platino Classic Motors vs Deputy Commissioner. Learn how the court directs a decision on unpaid service tax and central excise dues after hearing the Official Liquidator.
Explore the Karnataka High Court’s resolution in V.K. Niranjan And Co. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, emphasizing the court’s pragmatic approach to settle service tax disputes, involving a review petition challenging penalty imposition.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in Shaju Pachelil Pathrose vs ACIT. The court upholds an income tax assessment order, citing denial of repeated time requests by the assessee in response to show cause notices.
Madras High Court halts Rs. 9403.09 Cr Income Tax demand against Cognizant Technology Solutions India. Detailed analysis and implications of the order.
Delhi High Court’s directive in Santosh Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India emphasizes taxpayer rights during GST inspections. Coercion claim addressed.
The appeal primarily revolves around the treatment of expenses incurred by ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. in purchasing licensed software and on employee training.
Explore the Delhi High Court’s decision on Triveni Enterprises Limited vs ITO. Learn why the court upheld Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, dismissing fears of misuse as grounds for unconstitutionality.
Allahabad High Court quashes detention order by Revenue, emphasizing the importance of specific, valid, and unchanging grounds. Full analysis of Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P.
