Dilipkumar Premji Chheda Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) 1. Issue notice. Mr. Ajeet Manwani, learned counsel waives service for the Respondents. Objections be filed in six weeks. 2. Learned counsel for Petitioner states that the impugned notice dated 7th April, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is unsustainable in law and in as […]
HC Held that authorities cannot encash Bank Guarantee given by Assessee before expiry of statutory period available for filing an appeal.
An order of winding-up which automatically came into force upon a default in compliance with the consent terms executed on behalf of the company, and its directors could not be placed on the same pedestal as an order passed on merits, especially in a case like the one at hand where it appeared to be in the nature of a device to obviate the liability at that moment. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for quashing of the complaints under section 138 read with 141 of the NI Act.
BCCI is a ‘shop’ for the purposes of applicability of the ESI Act as activities of the BCCI can be said to be systematic commercial activities providing entertainment by selling tickets etc.
Held that principle of lifting the corporate veil was invoked without giving an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of nature justice and hence untenable
HC Held that Collector could not revise stamp duty upon Deed of Assignment, when he already once levied the stamp duty and endorsed a certificate to that effect on the Deed and such stamp duty was also paid
Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar Vs Laxmikant Govind Joshi (Bombay High Court) Held that the provisions of section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are directory and not mandatory as a discretion was conferred upon the Court, to either grant or not to grant interim compensation. Facts- The respondent/Complainant filed proceedings u/s. 138 of NI Act, […]
Held that in cases under audit, SVLDRS is eligible if the duty demand is quantified on or before 30th June 2019. As the draft of Minutes of the Managing Committee prepared by June 2019, amount of duty quantified before 30th June 2019. Accordingly, SVLDRS eligible.
Tax Recovery Officer ( TRO) could not have examined, whether transfer was void under Section 281 and that his adjudication of the transfer as being void under Section 281
PCIT Vs Crescent Construction Co (Bombay High Court) The purpose of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 is to solve the anomalies that the insertion of section 40(a)(ia) was causing to the bonafide tax payer. The amendment, even if not given operation retrospectively, may not materially be of consequence to the Revenue when […]
