The issue under consideration is whether the charge of interest under sections 234B and 234C on the book profit was not justified?
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that provisions of section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable for assessee?
No mandatory directions, much less directions, can be issued to the State Legislature to include the legal services rendered by the advocates into essential services. The directions as sought by the Petitioner cannot be issued to the State Legislature to legislate in a particular manner,
The issue under consideration is whether denial of a refund of Cenvat credit for mere non-registration of Premises is justified in law? learned Tribunal held that refund claimed by the Assessee on Cenvat Credit cannot be disallowed merely because the premises in question was not registered with the Revenue Department.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove technical glitches and enable the TRACES portal so that petitioner can file its refund application for the excess Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) deposited by it.
The contentions of the RBI that the dispute is between the Petitioner and Respondents is not acceptable since the dispute arises out of the implementation or not of a Circular issued by the RBI. RBI is therefore directed to monitor the implementation of the Circular, including verification of whether there are Board-approved policies formulated by each of the lenders
Calcutta High Court Allowed the Petitioner to Approach the Authorities to Make Copies of Seized Documents under Section 67(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Reply to Show Cause Notice thereafter.
The issue under consideration is whether Tribunal was correct and justified in directing the AO to allow deduction under section 80-IB(10) to assessee land owner when it had not incurred any expenses towards development or construction of the housing project?
High Court states that, however, insofar as the net refundable amount of Rs. 833,04,88,000/- is concerned, in our view, the respondents already having invoked their powers under Section 245 of the Act which action has ended with passing of the order dated 28th May, 2020, the respondents cannot withheld the admitted refundable amount of Rs. 833,04,88,000/- on the ground that the respondents may have a future demand against the petitioner arising out of the pending assessment orders.
Rajasthan High Court grants bail to CA Anup Ashopa accused of creating fake firms for fraudulent input tax credit claims. Conditions and legal analysis included
