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.
The issue under consideration is whether Tribunal was correct and justified in directing the AO to allow deduction under section 80-IB(10) to assessee land owner when it had not incurred any expenses towards development or construction of the housing project?
HC modify Conditions of Bail considering the inability of accused to comply with same due to COVID-19.
ACIT Vs Padma Logistics & Khanij Pvt. Ltd (Madras High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of merged division in revised return is justified in law? In present case, the assessee Company had filed the original return of income on 28.09.2010 showing total income […]
ITAT states that, it has to be pointed out that any tax holiday can be granted to a person who declares a truthful return. It cannot and should not be granted to the person who claims that he purchased medical equipments in the guise of treating poor persons and it is subsequently found that the entire transaction is bogus.
In the present case, the dispute arose for the aforementioned reason as it is the case of the Plaintiff that the adoption of the deceptively similar expression Magical Masala by the defendant in the year 2013 for marketing their noodles amounts to passing-off.
The word Magic is laudatory. It is incapable of being appropriated by the plaintiff. As such no person can claim any monopoly over the said word Magic or Magical or their derivative as they are common to the trade. Therefore, it is incapable of being monopolised by any trader.
The issue under consideration is whether ITAT was right in law in holding Section 50B i.e slump sale was not applicable in present case of assessee?
The issue under consideration is the rejection of stay of demand by the assessing authority without offering an opportunity of heard is justified in law?
