Delhi High Court invalidates 2018-19 tax assessment, citing inadequate opportunity for defense and procedural violations. Details on the case and court ruling.
Upon disposal of appeal, in case adjudication order is upheld or modified, a fresh demand has to be raised in Form GST APL-04. Therefore, Garnishee notice become infructuous
Calcutta High Court sets aside IT order in Aman Khetawat vs ITO case due to violation of natural justice. Fresh order instructed. Calcutta High Court sets aside IT order in Aman Khetawat vs ITO case due to violation of natural justice. Fresh order instructed.
HC dismisses application to Quash FIR filed against a HDFC Bank Manager for allowing a Customer to Operate Bank Locker despite receiving prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act to put a stop operation on the Bank accounts, fixed deposits and Bank lockers of that Customer.
Karanja Terminal & Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court) The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the department and is the subject matter of an […]
It is not possible for me at this stage to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged. The investigation is going on and the same is at a crucial stage. Bail application dismissed.
Section 96 read with Section 46 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 specifically exempts payment of income tax on an amount of compensation paid under the award and/or agreement. Accordingly, TDS not deductible.
Shubham Thakral Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that only three days’ time was granted to the Petitioner to respond as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. He further states that though the annexure annexed with the notice granted the Petitioner eight days’ time to respond, […]
Karida Real Estates Private Limited vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Keeping in view the fact that the impugned order and notice have been issued without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, this Court sets aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the […]
HC held that, there would be no difference in the use of trade marks as a keyword on search engines as opposed to use as a keyword on App store searches. So long as the key words are being used for promoting a business, using a competitor’s trade mark, the same would be violative of the rights of the trade mark owner.
