B. Madhukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) It is not in dispute before the court that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017. The provisions of Section 31A(2) of […]
PCIT Vs IFFCO LTD (Delhi High Court) In view of Section 14A(1), no deduction is to be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the As per Section 2(45) of the Act, ‘total income’ means the total amount of […]
Nagesh Trading CO. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Directions given by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) were applicable to cases, where notices under Section 148 of the Act had been issued during the period 01st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021 – which is not the case in the present matter. Consequently, the […]
If foundational allegation is missing in notice issued under Section 148A(b) , the same cannot be incorporated by issuing a supplementary notice.
Nirmala Menon Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) To be noted, that the order is stated to have uploaded on the website of the portal, but the petitioner has not been intimated about such uploading by any means. It is only when coercive recovery was taken to recover the demand under the order that […]
The respondents have submitted a reply wherein, the averments made by the petitioner are controverted on the ground that the application for cancellation of registration was made in FORM GST REG-29 and not in FORM GST REG-16 and thus, the system did not link the GSTIN of Shri Abdul Hameed Bhati (the deceased proprietor of the firm) to the GSTIN of the petitioner herein.
J&K HC while dismissing the writ petition observed that there was an alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the issue raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact that cannot adjudicated upon in the writ petition.
Delhi HC granted permanent injunction to INTEL on the ground that the lis no longer exists between the parties and the Defendants were willing to suffer permanent injunction in terms of the prayer clause 37(i) & (ii) of the plaint, which was pertaining to prevent defendants to use the word INTEL as their trademark and trade name.
Sonal Automation Industries Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) The penalty order was passed due to inadvertent mistake i.e. invoice number stated as 235 in place of SAI/V/235. The writ petition was allowed and penalty order was quashed. The imposition of the penal consequences due to an exception, which has been caused on account […]
Satguru Impex Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) The petitioner made mistakes in the e-way bill in the names of buyers and sellers. In place of buyer’s name, seller name was filled and in place of seller’s name, buyer name was filled. The mistake was rectified by generating fresh e-way bill. The GST departments […]
