Adroit Industries (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Facts of the case are not in dispute to the effect that the petitioner during the relevant period i.e. 2015-20 was entitled to avail the benefit of MEIS but could not avail of such benefit as the concerned staff did not declare the […]
Section 70 and 71 mandate that the income disclosed in VDIS shall not be included income under section 139 means income which had already been disclosed and that assessment is not liable to be reopened.
Jahar Singh Gurjar Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) It is the case where petitioner as a complainant is seeking refund of his part of looted amount on interim custody from the trial Court. Total amount, which was recovered allegedly from the possession of the accused, was Rs.53,16000/- whereas the petitioner is seeking […]
High Court held that after 1/04/2021, it is mandatory requirement that prior to re-assessment proceedings notice under section 148-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 should be issued to assesseee. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 31/03/2021 (served through Email to the petitioner on 16/04/2021) stands quashed.
The Court held that the Bank could not have unilaterally changed the quantified OTS amount to Rs.50,50,000/- after correctly quantifying the OTS amount to be Rs.36,50,000/-. The same would be against the principles of natural justice, and also runs contrary to the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
Metharam Pinjani Vs Income Tax Department (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Learned counsel for the assessee/petitioner submits that despite the said prayer having been made for personal hearing contained in Para 7 of the reply (at Page No. 115 of the Paper Book), no personal hearing was afforded and the impugned order was passed thereby amounting […]
High Court Bar Association Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the Bench of NCLT was directed to be constituted at Indore by notification dated 08.03.2019. Till date, the notification could not be translated into reality. In the result, the litigants and lawyers of this jurisdiction are […]
In re Northern Coalfields Ltd. (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) The applicant in response of the queries raised sent a letter dated 30.10.2020 stating that – The applicant wishes to seek advance ruling on some other issues also. Thus instead of removing the defect in this application, the applicant seek the liberty to file fresh application […]
Balaji Services Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A declarant seeking remedy under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 shall be given an opportunity of being heard if their declaration is rejected The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s Balaji Publicity vs. Union of India and others [WP No.3133/2021 and W.P. No.3130/2021 decided […]
Balaji Services Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh High Court) As per Section 125 of the Act R/w Rule 3(2)(b) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the petitioners filed online applications in the prescribed form of SVLDRS-1 which should have been accepted. Due to technical glitch, the petitioners could not […]
