CIT (Exemption) Vs Mukund Bhavan Trust (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court held that Income of trust to the extent of violation of section 13 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to tax at maximum marginal rate. Section 11 Exemption cannot be denied for violation of section 13 of the Act. FULL TEXT OF […]
Bombay HC held that Amendment to Section 34 Arbitration Application cannot be allowed if it constitutes a fresh challenge
Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble High Court, Bombay in the matter of M/s Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India [Writ Petition no. 503/2021 dated July 27, 2022] directed the department to consider the application for Services Export from India Scheme (“SEIS”) benefits on the ground […]
Derivados Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pramara Promotions Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) 1. An interesting issue on the existence of an arbitration agreement arises in this application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’). By this application the Applicant has prayed for appointment of an arbitral tribunal […]
Ess Infraproject Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court applies Supreme Court of India’s Judgment in Filco Trade to give relief in the GST TRAN-1 issue FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT 1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in order dated 22nd July, 2022 in Petition(s) for Special […]
Santacruz Gymkhana Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Demand of entertainment duty on billiard tables Law as laid down by the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Gondwana Club (supra) will squarely apply to these petitions as well. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Gondwana Club (supra) read as under :- The word “entertainment” is […]
Held that an independent director, not in charge or not responsible for day to day conduct of the business, is not liable for offence by invoking section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Petitioner challenged rejection of declaration filed under ‘Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019’ by passing a very cryptic order without spelling out reason
PCIT Vs Kumar Builders Consortium (Bombay High Court) Revenue argued that Section 80IB(10), does not at all envisage a pro rata deduction, in respect of eligible fats. In other words, it is suggested that even if a single flat in a housing project is found to exceed the permissible maximum built-up area of 1500 sq.ft., […]
Accepting the statement of the assessee that the addition be restricted to only profit element on the purchases efected by it, the CIT(A), restricted the addition by estimating profit of 12.5% on the total purchases in question.
