Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The present case, admittedly, does not deal with the RTI Act. The definition of public authority as contained in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act has no application or relevance, whatsoever, in the present case, which is in the nature of […]
Interim custody of the vehicle which is dismissed by the order, dated 25.02.2022 on the ground that confiscation proceedings are already initiated and pending and therefore, it is not desirable to hand over the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner.
Shibu. L.P. Vs Neelakantan (Kerala High Court) Law is settled on the point that a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be presented through the power of attorney holder and the power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court in order to […]
PCIT Vs Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) No Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS shortfall due to any difference of opinion Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as […]
HC quashed the letter issued by the Revenue department for blocking assessee’s bank account as it does not comply with the perquisites embedded under Section 83 of CGST Act 2017
Tafe Access Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court) undisputed facts of the case are, GST3 has been paid for the Assessment year 2017-18 on January 30, 2020 and refund application has been filed on July 07, 2020. In Para 4.2 of the Circular dated September 25, 2021, Ministry of Finance has […]
Mittal Plywood And Furniture Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) From the record, it appears that the first notice was given by the respondent no.2 to the petitioner on 15.03.2022 granting 15 days’ time to submit reply with respect to the allegedly unverified transaction of Rs.3,19,22,729/-. On 30.03.2022, the petitioner submitted online adjournment application […]
Symed Labs Limited Vs. Appellate Joint Commissioner of ST (Telangana High Court) HC set aside penalty levied for mismatch of vehicle number in e-way bill for stock transfer – There was mismatch between the registration number of the vehicle and the vehicle number mentioned in the e-way bill. Statement of the driver was found to […]
K.P. Shaneej Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals) (Kerala High Court) Revenue very fairly submits that there are certain judgments of this Court which take the view that without the authenticated copy of the assessment order, an appeal cannot be filed and such authentication will be recognised by the system only when a demand is raised pursuant […]
Tvl. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (CT) III (Madras High Court) Coming to the imposition of penalty and levy of interest under the impugned order, I am of the view that sustaining the same would be hyper-technical. No doubt, the petitioner has made an inadmissible claim of transition. However, I have noticed earlier […]
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
