P.S.Shanmuga Sundaram Vs Director Treasuries and Accounts Department (Madras High Court) Facts- The Petitioners are in the business of vending stamp papers since 1988 and holding valid licenses. The grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that since January, 2015, the Respondents are illegally demanding the Petitioners to deposit Rs.15/- for every bundle of currency, i.e., bundle […]
From a conjoint reading of Section 2(1)(j)(A), Section 2(1)(o)(i), Section 3, Section 5 and Section 6 of the DTVSV Act, it is clear that there is no provision in the DTVSV Act, which authorises recovery of interest paid earlier by the Department under Section 244A as disputed tax, there being no statutory mandate for the Designated Authority to recover interest as disputed tax in the manner sought to be done in this case.
HC held that is not proper on the part of State Bank of India to collect cash handling charges from the stamp vendors. Accordingly, the Second and Third Respondents have failed to establish that they have the authority to collect cash handling charges from the stamp vendors, who all are depositing money through Treasury Challans for purchase of stamps.
HC held that in a case where assessee is accused of passing on fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual moment of goods, a reasoned order must be passed by Joint Commissioner of State Tax, after acknowledging all the relevant material and contentions that the assessee may produce to satisfy the authorities.
The plea by assessee to quash Enforcement Directorate summons in a money laundering case was quashed as assessee had failed to make out a case for interference for the invocation of 226 of the Constitution and 482 of Cr.P.C.
Assessee could not be compelled to wait for eternity to agitate its claim seeking refund under the provisions of GST of the amount to which it was entitled to under the statute and also blocking its funds affecting its cash flows, merely because of existence of (non functional) alternate forum/remedy on paper, by not invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court ruling on advocates as power of attorney holders. Amarjeet Singh Sahni’s dual role clarified. Settlement reached in property dispute. Details of MoU considered.
Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs. Ravi Chadha and Ors. (Delhi High Court) Stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is available against infringement of registered trade mark and not against passing off In the matter of Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs. Ravi Chadha and Ors. [CM (M) 428/2021, CMAPPL. 20526/2021] dated 06th August 2021, […]
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal, erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) by deleting the addition of Rs.11,39,00,000/-made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by disregarding that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the share applicants in question ?
Delay in filing return was condoned as CBDT, in virtually passing an assessment order on the return of income of assessee had traversed beyond the scope of its power to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(b) and had acted contrary to the provisions of Section 119(2)(b)
