Abhishek Jain Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Abhishek Jain, as an individual, has filed the present writ petition for quashing notice dated 18th February, 2016 issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10 by the Income-tax Officer, Ward No.1 (1), […]
Where an Assessee follows the Accrual/Mercantile system of Accounting – as in this case – income can be recognised only when the matching expenditure is also accounted for irrespective of the cash outflows/inflows during the year. It would thus, not be correct to recognize the subsidies received for incurring specific expenditure as income without accounting for the corresponding expenditure
Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Delhi High Court) The petitioner had approached this Court claiming directions that common investigations be carried out having regard to the nature of its business functioning and having regard to the fact that M/s. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. maintains common accounts and, therefore, prepares balance sheets on […]
Delhi HC held that that at least for the period till 31.03.2019, the CBDT shall issue an appropriate direction, and also create a platform by amending the digital form of substituting them properly to enable opt out from the mandatory requirement of having to furnish Aadhar Registration or Aadhar linkage, for the duration, the exemption subsists i.e. till 31.03.2019.
In the instant case supplies of goods were made by the petitioner to other divisions of MSSL which had a status of EOUs. The pivotal point is that the FTP 2009-2014 conferred a right on the petitioner, who, admittedly, was a DTA supplier, at the relevant point in time, to seek refund of TED, as the supplies had been made to 100% EOUs, albeit, under a non-ICB route.
Petitioners had ceased to be the Directors of the Company, as stated by them, on 8thApril, 2011 and that they could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.
CIT Vs M/s Sudev industries limited (Delhi High Court) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that service of notice at the factory premises of the Assessee on the security guard was not proper service under the provisions of Section 282(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Section 282 of […]
Hon’ble HC held that an entity which falls within the definition of the micro/small enterprise will be treated as a ‘supplier’ under Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act even if it has not filed a Memorandum as required under Section 8(1) of the MSMED Act.
Question raised in the present writ petition is whether as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (C.E. Act, for short) the petitioner-assessee on filing of second appeal before the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) is required to make an additional pre-deposit of 10% of the duty and penalty in dispute, over and above 7.5% pre-deposit made for filing of first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
It is submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has resigned from the directorship of the company in question, the petitioner would not incur a disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act. Consequently, the disqualification of the petitioner as notified in the lists dated 6thSeptember, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 by the respondent no.1 was incorrect and illegal.
