Petitioner’s intended to take benefit of MEIS scheme. Thus, error of not marking ‘Y’ against reward column is clearly an inadvertent error.
Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Instructions issued by Revenue Department needs to be aligned with the decisions taken by the courts and the position of law as declared by the judgments The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors [Review […]
Delhi High Court ruled that the import or release of goods in favor of a petitioner without the transfer of ownership is not allowed under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner is liable to pay 50% of the detention/demurrage charges.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Conciliation Officer is not an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court and does not exercise judicial/quasi-judicial functions and/or does not adjudicate the claims of /disputes between the parties.
A perusal of the instruction would show that PAN – AAACK4O32H concerns an entity going by the name K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. This PAN does not concern M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner’s stand that it had not entered into any transaction with M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. is correct. Given this position, in our view, both the notice which is issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act and the order that was passed under Section 148 A (d) of the Act suffer from obvious errors.
HC held that There is no absolute bar against a lawsuit or legal proceedings continuing concurrently with liquidation proceedings under Section 33(5) of IBC (Liquidation Moratorium), unlike Section 14 of IBC (CIRP Moratorium).
Delhi High Court held that compensation received from Government of Goa on cancellation of plot is capital receipt and hence not taxable.
HC held that notice is needed to be served to assessee under Rule 25 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) before physical inspection is carried out.
HC directed the investigating officer to issue advance notice of 72 hours to the assessee to effect the arrest if necessary, after investigation in a case. Further directed the assessee to co-operate in the matter and produce the materials as sought.
Vodafone Mauritius Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Ms Fereshte D. Sethna, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, which is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius, had sold shares worth Rs.1295 crores, of an Indian company going by the […]
