Madras High Court upheld the requirement which mandates that the IP should pay a fee calculated at 0.25% of the professional fee earned for services rendered as an IP in the preceding financial year to the IBBI.
the objective of the Dispute Resolution Scheme is to reduce legacy tax disputes and therefore, fairness should be there while interpreting the provisions of the scheme.
High Court states that by taking into consideration the situation of COVID-19 pandemic, court directed officer to de-freeze the bank account maintained by the petitioner.
The issue under consideration is whether the petition filed by the CA for seeking to direct the Institute of Cost Accountants of India to use the acronym ‘ICOAI’ instead of ‘ICAI’ will be sustain by the High Court?
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest expenditure is Capital in nature
The issue under consideration is whether the foreign currency expenditure need to be excluded from the ‘export turnover’ of the assessee for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10AA of the Act?
The issue under consideration is whether the petitioner is liable for the refund for the excess amount of duty paid under customs as per the amended section 25 of Customs Act?
P.R. Mani Electronics Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 of the CGST Rules enables a registered person to carry forward the accumulated ITC under erstwhile tax legislations and claim the same under the CGST Act. In effect, it is a transitional provision as is […]
The issue under consideration is whether denial of a refund of Cenvat credit for mere non-registration of Premises is justified in law? learned Tribunal held that refund claimed by the Assessee on Cenvat Credit cannot be disallowed merely because the premises in question was not registered with the Revenue Department.
If the word ‘a’ as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words ‘one’ with effect from 01.04.2015 could not include plural units of residential houses, there was no need to amend the said provisions by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 which the Legislature specifically made it clear to operate only prospectively from A.Y.2015-2016.
