Delhi High Court held that as Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 doesn’t include ‘professional activity’ of lawyers as ‘commercial activity’. Accordingly, under the DMC Act there is no power to tax ‘professional activity’ carried out from residential building.
Karnataka High Court held that AO based on incorrect assumption treated the money collected by the trust as capitation fee under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act. In absence of any violation of KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act duly available.
Gauhati High Court held that the existence of an alternative relief would dissuade the Court from entertaining the writ petition. Constitutional Jurisdiction cannot be exercised in view of provisions for alternative remedy.
In Earthmark Traders v. Joint Commissioner, State Tax ,Calcutta High Court sets aside order passed by Appellate Authority, emphasizing that authority cannot go beyond the allegations made in Show Cause Notice. Learn about facts, issue, held, and implications of this significant decision.
Read judgment of Sunil Enterprises vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax by Allahabad High Court. Court overturned Adjudicating Authority’s order, highlighting violation of natural justice principles when an order is passed prematurely.
Read about the Bombay High Court’s ruling in the case of Sunlight Cable Industries vs. The Commissioner of Customs NS II And 2 Ors., directing the refund of IGST along with interest at 7%. Analysis of the court’s decision and its implications.
Bombay High Court held that provisional attachment under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ceases to exist after a period of one year.
Read the full text of the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sinha vs ACIT, where the Delhi High Court sets aside the assessment order and notices issued under the Income Tax Act, directing a re-examination of the material provided by the petitioner and a fresh assessment by the Assessing Officer.
Calcutta High Court held that though the official liquidator is now in-charge of the affairs of the company, the petitioners being the erstwhile directors are to assist the official liquidator in affairs of the company even after winding up.
Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner and stated that the case is not fit for exercising discretionary power under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the matter of dealing with prohibited drugs.
