Since the maximum period of demurrage and detention charges waivers could be possible for 60 days, beyond which, there was no scope for such demurrage and detention charges waiver in view of the proviso to Regulations 10(l) of 2018 Regulations, since the said two months period had already been given from 18.11.2021 to 13.01.2022, beyond 13.01.2022, assessee could not seek for any such waiver for detention and demurrage charges.
Dharmesh Kirtikumar Saha Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Facts: Applicant has entered into a criminal conspiracy for creating fake purchases of 2 (two) firms with well organize bogus billing syndicate which resulted into monetary loss of the government exchequer to the turn of Rs 9.33 crores. Applicant was served summon, however he didn’t not […]
VAT exemption was allowable to Rusk also as same as Bread because the raw material as also the manufacturing process for Bread and Rusk was same and thereafter only the moisture was extracted, would not term that activity to be falling within the meaning of manufacturer as used in the Act.
AO issued a notice dated 3.2.2022 by which petitioner was asked to furnish relevant documents on or before 10.02.2022 and without waiting for the response by the petitioner AO on 04.02.2022 passed the assessment order which is in violation of the principle of natural justice.
Petitioner states that impugned order and consequential notices of demand and penalty raising a demand of income tax amounting to Rs. 48 crores are in complete contravention of the order passed by NCLT
Explore the legal intricacies of V. Krishnamurthy vs. Diary Classic Ice Creams in Karnataka High Court. Analysis of interim compensation order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
HC held that interest component of Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI) of loan, through credit card services by a bank, attracts payment of GST
Order for grant of suspension of sentence or bail were all interlocutory orders and were not revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
HC directed the respondents to open the portal to file, revise or re-revise TRAN 1 return, if it is possible or feasible.
Ernst And Young U.S. LLP Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Court is of the view that the Petitioner-Assessee has a right to get adequate time in accordance with the Act to submit its reply. Section 148A(b) permits the Assessing Officer to suo moto provide up to thirty days period to an assessee to respond to […]
