Court held that a party cannot directly seek the appointment of the arbitrator when the agreement provides for pre-arbitration reference to some authority.
Rajdhani Security Force Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Section 107 (1) of GST Act provides that an appeal can be preferred within a period of three (3) months from the date of the order, while Section 107 (4) of the Act stipulates that the Appellate Authority, if satisfied that the […]
The entire controversy revolves around the question as to whether the assessee has been able to provide explanation for difference of stock between the stock submitted to the bank as on 28/3/2005 and the stock indicated in the audit report for the period ending 31/03/2005 relating to raw material, stock-in-process and finished goods.
Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A tax invoice was generated which reflected the destination as well as the registration number of the vehicle which has been brought on record as Annexure P/3. Thereafter, the petitioner generated E-way bill which is required to be carried along with the […]
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 […]
