Drillmec S.P. A Vs Oil India Ltd. (Guwahati High Court) HC observed that provisions contained in Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be readily read into and applied to as the terms and conditions of a non-statutory contract. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF […]
Central Goods and Service Tax Vs Pawan Kumar Sharma (Patiala House Court) By way of the instant order, I propose to dispose of the application moved on behalf of applicant/accused Pawan Kumar Sharma for grant of bail. It is submitted that on 12.05.2022, the house of applicant/accused situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi was searched by […]
S. R. Ashok Associates Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) as well as the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 31st March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Learned […]
Aten Capital Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Since the impugned order under Section 148A(d) has been passed on 5th April, 2022 i.e. after receipt of the detailed reply of the petitioner dated 4th April, 2022, the Assessing Officer should have considered the same as it was available on record. By not considering the […]
HC held that Tribunal cannot differ from earlier order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case and follow the order of Tribunal in another assessee.
Summoning of the MD should be undertaken only as a last resort in cases where assesses are not cooperating or the investigations are to be completed expeditiously. The same is not justified in the present case.
Held that in case of appointment of a sole arbitrator, the law is very clear that it is the Court that is to decide the sole arbitrator. The persons that have been nominated by the respondent cannot be accepted.
The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148A of the Income Act, 1961 on 20.03.2022 and that the Petitioner has also replied to the same on 25.03.2022, which has also been acknowledged. However, the impugned order has wrongly recorded that the Petitioner has not responded.
Parveen Mehta Vs Vishal Joshi (Punjab & Haryana High Court) HC held that undisputed signatures of the respondent on the cheque in itself is not sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the Act. One of the ingredient for succeeding under Section 138 of the Act is that the cheque was issued for discharge of […]
Harsh Kaushal Corporation Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) In the present case, it is evident from the reasons recorded for reopening that the petitioner had truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. In fact, in the reasons for reopening, there is not even a whisper as to what was […]
