Kishore Kumar Arora Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Based on the material placed on record, it would have to be concluded that the taxable turnover of the petitioner was Rs. 15,28,468/-, which, as noticed above, is below the threshold limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- fixed for tobacco products. We are, therefore, inclined to agree […]
Held that just because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, it cannot be presumed that an agreement is excluded from the applicability of Section 9
ITO admits that principle of judicial discipline mandates that the lower authorities are bound to follow the orders passed by the higher authorities. He expresses his unconditional apology and regret for the aforesaid observations/findings and prays that the said observations in the impugned order be expunged/deleted.
Abhishek Gumber, Proprietor of M/S AG Enterprises Vs Commissioner of GST (Delhi High Court) It is clear that once the petitioner‟s refund claim was rejected on the ground that it was founded on forged ITC, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax, interest and perhaps also penalty, in the event the adjudication order is […]
The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is in addition to other remedies available and not in derogation to The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Held that as per Rule 2(b)(vii) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 read with General Circular No. 15/2015, the share application money given by the Petitioner for allotment of shares cannot be treated as deposits. Hence, penal interest not available to the petitioner.
Held that BGs can be invoked within/ before 90 days from the date of expiry of defect liability period. However, the defect liability period would arise only after the completion of the work.
Statutory definition of relative u/s 2(g) of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be imported under Section 2(41) and Section 56 of Income Tax Act, 1961 when both the Acts define the term differently.
Held that the impugned proceedings rest on the second chargesheet which bids us to restrict scrutiny upto 04 September 2003 and there is no allegation that any illegal monetary gains were derived or obtained as on 04 September 2003. Provisional order of attachment held illegal.
P C Financial Services Private Limited Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (Delhi High Court) 1. Present application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 31st May, 2022 passed by this Court by relying on the order dated 31st May, 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of […]
