The issue under consideration is whether the exemption u/s 54 will be allowed if the reinvestment is made in residential property outside India?
M/s. HCL Infosystems Limited Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents a litigant from seeking a remedy in a new court or jurisdiction until all claims or remedies have been exhausted (pursued as fully as possible) in the original one. In this case Rajasthan High Court explains The […]
Girdhari Lal Lath Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court) Since Sub Section (6) of Section 44 of the MVAT Act is subject to the Companies Act, 2013 the definitions and distinctions laid down in the Companies Act, 2013 vis-a-vis public company and private company would be applicable to Section 44(6) of the […]
CIT Vs M/s. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Hon’ble High Court Observed that The issues which arise before this Court have at times huge tax implications and as the decision rendered in one case would have a bearing on all similar matters across the State, the importance of proper appointment is paramount. […]
CIT Vs Shri. T. Perumal (Madras High Court) Here is a case where the loan taken from friends and repayment of the same in cash. The reason that taking of loan is found to be genuine and the same is for business exigency, it is not a case of undisclosed income. If the assessee had […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) HC held that impugned order of the Tribunal after recording that the issue stands covered by various decisions of the Supreme Court and the various High Courts cases observes ‘admittedly, there are contrary decisions where it is held that interest paid on delayed […]
Bai Mamubai Trust Vs Suchitra (Bombay High Court) In the present case, where the Plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case and the Defendant has not been able to demonstrate any semblance of right to occupy the Suit Premises, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s occupation pursuant to an Order of the […]
In the given case, the applicant is facing charges under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for which maximum sentence is of five years. Hence the applicant wanted to apply for regular bail.
Rajesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Ramsharan Vs Chief Information Commission (Chhattisgarh High Court) Admittedly, in this case, up till the filing of the second appeal, no information was supplied, however, the information when was supplied i.e. the copy of the cash-book, the petitioner contended that one copy was supplied twice. The commission therefore, on such […]
Bai Mumbai Trust Vs Suchitra (Bombay High Court) Issue raised whether GST is applicable on services or assistance rendered by the Court receiver appointed by the Court under order XL of CPC. Court observed that schedule III provides that services provided by any court or tribunal established under any law is neither a supply of […]
