CIT Vs Roots Multiclean Ltd. (Madras High Court) It is abundantly clear from sub-section (2) of Section 80IA that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 801A has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab […]
Satish Kansal Vs Synergy Tradeco NV (Delhi High Court) Merely because there is a dispute between the buyer and the seller with regard to the contract of supply of goods, that cannot be ground for interfering with the LC. Therefore, the courts have recognized only two exceptions to the aforesaid principle where courts would pass […]
The Court has held that even though there might be no reciprocity between India and another country under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, the notarial acts of the Notaries in the foreign country could be given legal recognition by the courts and authorities in India.
Writ applicant could be said to be entitled to claim the refund of the IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger as there is no specific supplier who can claim the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules as Input Tax Credit is distributed by the input service distributor.
In the instant case, admittedly there has been no provisional release of the seized goods. Further extension of six months with the reasoned order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs also is completely missing. The period of six months from the date of signature expired on 03.10.2019.
Dee Vee Projects Ltd. Vs Government of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Order not specifying amount to the extent to which the ECL has been blocked is Illegal A careful perusal of Rule 86-A would show that there is no specific mention therein about the blocking of the ECL and what is stated is that the […]
As held by Allahabad High Court in Mon Mohan Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, it is concluded that law prevailing on the date of issuance of notice under section 148 has to be applied.
Messers Filatex India Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The short point for our consideration as on date is whether the assertion on the part of the writ applicant that it is entitled to claim the refund in accordance with the formula as provided under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 89 of the […]
UOI Vs Aps Structures Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) It is well settled that recourse to Section 14 of the A&C Act is not available in respect of any challenge to the arbitrator under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act. Such a recourse is permissible only in the event the arbitrator is ineligible by virtue […]
State of Jharkhand Vs Information Commissioner (Jharkhand High Court) The provision of compensation has been provided under the provision of Section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act, 2005 by which a Public Authority is required to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. Since this Court has answered the issue about distinction in between […]
