Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants created several fictitious and physically non-existent trading company firms in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Maharashtra, got them registered in GSTN portal online using identity credential of several persons using forged PAN and issued fake bills to transmit fake Income Tax Credit (ITC) to several other traders.
S.M.D.Mohamed Abdul Khader Vs Muniswari (Madras High Court) The Honourable Supreme Court of India held that when the accused had taken specific stand that the complainant had no source of income to lend such a huge sum, the accused can very well prove the same by cross-examination, witnesses and materials. In this regard, the Honourable […]
Mr Bhavanishankar H Sharma Vs SRS Private Investment Powai Limited (Delhi High Court) Section 14 of the Arbitration Act based lays down conditions under which the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal may be terminated. The petition does not satisfy any of the requirements of the conditions contained in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. Petitioner […]
Institute of Chartered Accountant of India Vs Shri. P.P. jay (Karnataka High Court) ICAI submitted that the report of the Institute be accepted as the respondent has been found to be guilty of grave misconduct and the penalty has been imposed on the respondent commensurate to the misconduct, which has been proved. None has appeared […]
Rohit Surfactants Private Limited Vs Kanodia Salt Company Ltd (Allahabad High Court) In Regu Mahesh (Supra), the Court while dealing with compliance of Rule 15 (2) of Order VI relying upon its earlier judgment in case of A. Sapa Vs. Singora, 1991 (3) SCC 375, held that defect in verification or an affidavit is curable. […]
Medicos Legal Action Group Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) We see no reason to hold that merely because of enactment of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 upon repeal of the 1986 Act as well as the parliamentary debates referred to by the petitioning Trust, the efficacy of the law laid down in the decision […]
Allahabad HC reviews Ambuj Foods reassessment notice for AY 2013-14, alleging routing funds as share premium through shell companies.
Samet Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Bombay High Court) It is Petitioner’s case that the same issue which is mentioned in the reasons for reopening was a subject matter of consideration during the assessment proceedings and the assessment order dated 20th December, 2010 in fact even discussed this item. Therefore, reopening is based on change […]
Nirman Overseas Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi (Delhi High Court) AO issued the impugned order dated 16th March, 2022 denying the immunity from penalty and prosecuting the Petitioner on the ground that since no order under Section 270AA had been passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the statutory timeline, it may […]
In our opinion, a petition for direction to State Govt for issuing a notification declaring any monument to be of national importance cannot be issued as it is the matter to be decided by the competent authority under the aforesaid Act.
