When the accused was not produced before a Court on the date of hearing and no production warrant was issued for the said accused on the same date of hearing but was issued subsequently, the custody of the accused would not be in continuum and for the break period, it might be illegal.
CESTAT Hyderabad quashes differential duty demand against KRIBHCO, citing lack of evidence for price influence in OMIFCO relationship. Full text of the order.
Explore legal nuances of a disputed Income Tax notice in Subramaniam Rohini vs ITO case. Learn about digital signatures, communication timelines, and relevant court judgments
Gain insights into ITAT Mumbai’s ruling on DCIT Vs Abdulsattar Suleman, emphasizing the non-taxability of capital gains from land transfer to a partnership firm for AY 2013-14.
Bombay High Court orders de novo assessment in Pravir Polymers vs. ITO case, citing Rule 46A violation. Get insights on S. 254(2) rectification and due process.
Explore legal battle in Farzad Sheriar Jehani Vs ITO, analyzing assessment of long-term capital gains on a penny stock. Learn about tribunal’s decision and its implications.
Gujarat High Court rules in Amit Hospital Pvt Ltd vs PCIT, stating that Section 119(2)(b) applications can’t be rejected based on vague reasons for Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner asserts that the draft assessment order, a prerequisite under Section 144B(xxi), was not provided, depriving them of the opportunity to contest and resulting in a substantial demand.
Explore the legal intricacies of pre-deposit for appeal under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/BGST Act in Flipkart vs. State of Bihar. Learn about ECL vs. ECRL utilization.
Even if the service tax had been deposited by the appellant after 01.01.2017, nonetheless the refund of any amount of the CENVAT credit could be claimed only under subsection (3) of section 142 of the CGST Act and against this order an appeal will lie to the Tribunal.
