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.
Even in case the supreme court decide the above case in favour of assessee and make amendment section 140 of CGST Act, still that change will not allowed petitioner to claim Transitional Credit.
The issue under consideration is whether the contention of the petitioner that the provisional attachment for wrong availment of ITC is without jurisdiction and illegal is correct?
Stay against Penalty order under IBC allowed against petitioner who has violated Terms of Moratorium
Writ petition is filed for challenging order passed by National Anti-Profiteering Authority under CGST Act. HC approved Stay Application for Interest, Penalty & Investigation levied by Anti-Profiteering Authority
Whether the NCLT was correct in passing an order of initiation of the CIRP against a MSME without considering the fact that the minimum threshold limit of filing application in NCLT has been increased to Rs. 1 Crore?
The Court concluded that the findings of a Subsequent Award would not render the previous Award illegal or contrary to law. To find the validity of the Award, the Award had to be tested as on the date when it was pronounced, on its own merits.
CIT Vs Expeditors International (India) (P.) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Assessee-company was engaged in business of supplying chain management, logistics and freight forwarding related to movement of goods and cargo within India or outside by road, rail, air or ship – It involved activities of packing, loading/unloading, trucking, tenderization, customs clearance and other cargo handling […]
The issue under consideration is whether AO is correct in treating unsecured loan received by assessee as unexplained credit under section 68?
A petition under Section 34 of the Act is only for setting aside an Arbitral Award on the limited grounds provided under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, the mere pendency of Section 34 proceedings cannot afford a ground for a party to assert that it has a dispute regarding contractual performance.
