Bank cannot claim any amount from the customer when a transaction is shown to be a ‘disputed transaction’. The bank can recover from the customers only when it can unequivocally prove that the customer was responsible for such transaction, independently through the civil court. The RBI guidelines is a clear mandate to exonerate a customer in such ‘disputed transaction’.
Services provided by the payment gateway is such that the charges collected by it has to be necessarily treated as fees and not as a commission. The payment in fact is made by one principal to another and it is only being facilitated by the payment gateway by providing a service.
D. K. Shivakumar Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court) While dealing with the bail application, it is not in dispute that three factors have to be seen viz. i) flight risk, ii) tampering evidence iii) influencing witnesses. Regarding the flight risk, neither argued by learned Additional Solicitor General nor placed any material on record, […]
RDS Project Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) One is known by the company one keeps. Sh. Tarun Goyal has been established to be engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. He is the promoter of about 90 companies from the same set of addresses as aforesaid. Amongst the companies promoted by him are […]
He has also made a suggestion that instead of constituting a separate tribunal to deal with GST matters, the CESTAT could be empowered to deal with the same since several cases involve issues relating to customs duties and GST as well.
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Admittedly there has been a typographical/ clerical error on the part of the petitioner which the petitioner is entitled to correct while filling up the TRAN-I Form, we dispose of this writ petition by directing the Respondents “to either open […]
Maple Logistics Private Limited & Anr Vs Pr. CCIT (Delhi High Court) Assessing Officer shall, firstly, with reasons, make a prima facie assessment of the probability that additions would be made in the Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings, secondly; he shall make an assessment of the quantum of additions, if any, that may be made to the […]
The statutory scheme found in Section 434(1)(c) clearly is that the proceedings for winding up pending before the Company Court could be transferred to the NCLT and there is no provision for transfer of proceedings from the NCLT to the Company Court.
The Tyre Plaza Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that in the present case, the eligibility of the Petitioner to claim the input tax credit (ITC) has not been doubted by the Respondents. However, for no fault of the Petitioner, despite repeated attempts, it could […]
Sikka Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that in the present case, the eligibility of the Petitioner to claim ITC has not been doubted by the Respondents. However, for no fault of the Petitioner, despite filing the form GST […]
