Madras High Court upheld the requirement which mandates that the IP should pay a fee calculated at 0.25% of the professional fee earned for services rendered as an IP in the preceding financial year to the IBBI.
U.C. Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner tried to file TRAN -1 form within the time provided under Rule 117 as well as the extended time given by this Court vide judgment dated 05th May, 2020 in Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. Vs. […]
Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 is justified in law? In the present case, after referring to the information received following search and seizure action carried out in the premises of Shri Naresh Jain, it was stated that information […]
Explore the Odisha High Court’s ruling on the bail application of Amit Beriwal, accused in a massive GST fraud case. The court emphasizes the seriousness of economic offenses.
MP High Court Grant Bail to Pakistani National who accused of GST evasion of Rs. 225 Crores alongwith furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
The HC held that the impugned provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s bank account was in vogue till 27.05.2020. The communication/order dated 28.05.2019 ceased to operate with the effect from 27.05.2020. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to de- freeze the Petitioners’ bank account.
Data Transmission Services did not amount to royalty in terms of Article 12 of the Indo-Thai Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
Century Copper Rod Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commisssioner (Gujarat High Court) In this case Hon;ble HC was convinced that the amount has been withheld by the Assistant Commissioner for extra legal reasons. Once, the Tribunal had clearly held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount, there was no reason for the assistant […]
the objective of the Dispute Resolution Scheme is to reduce legacy tax disputes and therefore, fairness should be there while interpreting the provisions of the scheme.
The issue under consideration is whether the services in relation to issuance of GDRs are covered under the provisions of Section 9(i)(vii) and whether the same liable for TDS under the provisions of Section 195 of the Act?
