Seema Gupta Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30th June, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the consequential notice dated 30th June, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year […]
Delhi high court negating dept stand about retrospective amendment plea for sec 14A explanation added by finance act 2022 in authors opinion it should ably address the much created confusion from revenue side.
Delhi High Court admitted a petition through which two adjudication orders based on a single show cause notice was challenged. Also held that no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioners, in pursuance of the aforementioned adjudication orders.
Held that the department cannot proceed against a person found liable to prosecute him for the offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without sanction under section 278B.
Respondent had voluminous transactions, it committed an error while posting the relevant dividend entry, which was covered by one voucher since it was received on the same security.
Since the ex-promoters/directors and similarly situated chartered accountants have been granted bail, there is no reason why the Applicant should be treated any differently. Bail granted
Power of RBI to withhold remittance to be made under Automatic route to Wholly owned Subsidiary cannot be used to reject the remittance on whimsical and arbitrary reasons.
Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited Vs F1.mylivecricket.live and Ors (Delhi High Court) Defendants No. 1 to 39 are said to be rogue infringing websites engaged in the business of uploading pirated and unlicensed content. Among the various illegal acts done by them is the live streaming of various sporting events. Unauthorized communication/ broadcast to public […]
More than adequate opportunities to complete the disciplinary proceedings arising from Departmental Charge Sheet dated 16.07.2015 had been granted by the CAT firstly in 2016, and then again in 2020. Extension rightly not granted
Power under Section 9 could only be exercised for preservation of the subject matter of the dispute till the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal and scope of relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act could not be extended for directing specific performance of the contract.
