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,
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.
PCIT Vs B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P Ltd (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in disallowing the deduction of interest expenditure on the ground that the assessee had diverted interest bearing funds for non-business purposes? In the present case, The assessee had outstanding balance shown in the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the loan given by the Government which was subsequently waived off can be taxed under Section 28(iv) of Income Tax Act?
whether the rejection of petitioner’s application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Form No. SVLDRS-3 in respect of central excise duty payable is justified by law?
PCIT Vs Hybrid Financial Services Ltd (Bombay High Court) Under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the amount of any bad debt or any part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year is to be allowed as deduction in computing income under Section 28 of the […]
Gateway Leaisng Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Section 148- Revenue cannot travel beyond reasons recorded & same cannot be supplemented at the Later stage. Reasons which are recorded by the Assessing Officer for re-opening an assessment are the only reasons which can be considered when the formation of the belief is impugned; such […]
At the outset, it is important to note that the claim of the Plaintiff that ISKCON is a well-known trade mark is not disputed by the Defendant. It is clear that ISKCON is a coined trade mark of the Plaintiff, that is to say that the said term ISKCON did not exists prior to the Plaintiff’s adoption and use of the same.
The issue under consideration is whether the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in law for for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong ?
The issue under consideration is whether the Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess is allowable as a business expenses?
