High Court Bar Association Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the Bench of NCLT was directed to be constituted at Indore by notification dated 08.03.2019. Till date, the notification could not be translated into reality. In the result, the litigants and lawyers of this jurisdiction are […]
Coca-Cola India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Revenue relied upon a Bombay HC judgment in Crompton Greaves Ltd. V/s. ACIT to submit that even if the reason for reopening does not specifically state that there was any failure on the part of petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for […]
CIT Vs Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The Bombay High Court allowed the deduction on interest paid on the amount borrowed for the purpose of machinery even if machinery is not actually used in business. The revenue has raised the issue Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in […]
Payment received by EYGSL (UK) for providing access to computer software to its member firms of EY Network located in India, that is, EYGBS (India), did not amount to royalty liable to be taxed in India under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the India-UK DTAA as the same did not create any right to transfer the copyright in the software.
Vishnu R. Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) On going through the above rules, it is clear that on receiving a complaint, the District Dowry Prohibition Officer is bound to scrutinize the complaint and find whether it would come within the purview of Sections 2, 3, 6 etc. of the Act and conduct an […]
Held that the refund towards the IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. zero rated supplies, vide the shipping bills ought to have been completed as the two circumstances provided in sub clauses (a) & (b) of Clause (4) of Rule 96 of Rules, 2017 do not exist. The shipping bills, as per Rule 96, exporter once file are deemed to be an application for refund of Integrated tax paid on the exports of goods and withholding of the same is made permissible under Rule 96 (4) when read with Section 54 as specified in the decision of Amit Cotton Industries.
LGW Industries Limited & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) 1. If all the purchases and transactions in question are genuine and supported by valid documents and transactions in question were made before the cancellation of registration of those suppliers and after taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court […]
Gandhi Realty (India) Private limited Vs Assistant/Joint/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Gujarat High Court) Sub-section (2) of section 144(B) says that every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by way of placing an authenticated copy thereof in the assessee’s registered account; or by sending […]
Mon Mohan Kohli Vs ACIT & Anr. (Delhi High Court) This Court is of the view that as the Legislature has introduced the new provisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021 and as the said Section 147 is […]
Sun Tower Residents Welfare Association Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority (Allahabad High Court) In reference to the Writ petition no 59863 of 2015, (Petitioner: Sun Tower Residents Welfare Association and Respondent: Ghaziabad Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Saya Gold Avenue and Ors) the petitioner had alleged the respondents for not legally conducting the construction of the Indirapuram’s […]
