Held that the restriction contained under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn’t apply once an application under Section 9(1) for interim measures has been entertained by the Court.
Held that circular no. 150/06/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021 clarifying that GST exemption is not available to annuity (deferred payments) received by the concessionaries towards construction of roads is contrary to notification no. 32/2017 and notification no. 33/2017 dated 13.10.2017.
Date for the purpose of quantifying the stamp duty payable on the instrument is the date on which the instrument was signed
Held that the act of University in granting affiliation to a private college is service in furtherance of providing education and accordingly the affiliation fees collected is exempted from service tax.
CIT Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Specific case of the Revenue before the ITAT is that the Contract is a composite one. Shri. Chaitanya is right in his submission that the dominant purpose of the Contract is supply of the passenger rolling stock. Thus, having taken a specific stand before the […]
Held that appellant has transferred the land to the developer through JDA and the developer had power to alienate their portion of property. Accordingly, property so transferred is not subject to wealth tax.
Held that if an offence committed by the firm, is also an offence committed by the partners, it cannot be bifurcated as partners and the firm
Bellatrix Consultancy Services Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court) It is not in dispute that assessee had paid service tax on an erroneous assumption that it was liable to pay the taxes. The Assessing Authority has allowed a part of the claim. Thus, according to the Assessing Authority, appellant is not liable to […]
Held that as the agreement between the parties provided for a ‘non-binding’ arbitration, there was absolutely no intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement and that the said agreement could not be termed as an arbitration agreement.
Commissioner of Central TAX Vs ABB Limited (Karnataka High Court) Undisputed facts of the case are, as recorded in paragraph 6 of the show cause notice, it was issued based on the balance sheet for the year ending 2008. Thus, the contentions of the Revenue that respondents trading activity was not known to the department […]
