No person should accept any loan or deposit of a sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Where a person advance cash more than Rs.20,000/- to another person, restriction on cash advances was, in fact, on the taker and not on the person who made an advance.
The respondents contended that the petitioner, being a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act, should exclusively resort to the statutory remedies provided by the Act, and arbitration should not be permissible. This article explores the court’s reasoning and its impact on the dispute resolution landscape.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in Platino Classic Motors vs Deputy Commissioner. Learn how the court directs a decision on unpaid service tax and central excise dues after hearing the Official Liquidator.
Explore the Karnataka High Court’s resolution in V.K. Niranjan And Co. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, emphasizing the court’s pragmatic approach to settle service tax disputes, involving a review petition challenging penalty imposition.
Dive into the legal battle of Chiragsala Sales vs. Vaishno Devi Traders at NCLT Guwahati. Explore the complex issue of financial debt, investment, and the implications under sec. 7 of the Code.
ITAT Chennai rules in favor of Sahana Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. against ITO, highlighting the importance of evidence and legal interpretation in cases of cash deposits during demonetization, underlining the principles of assessing unexplained cash credits.
Explore the Expat Engineering India Ltd. vs ACIT case regarding interest on late TDS payment. Understand the arguments, tribunal decision, and implications
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in Shaju Pachelil Pathrose vs ACIT. The court upholds an income tax assessment order, citing denial of repeated time requests by the assessee in response to show cause notices.
Read the detailed analysis of JKG Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs case. CESTAT Kolkata sets aside penalties, citing lack of evidence for Customs Broker violations.
CESTAT Bangalore ruling in IBM’s favor: Penalty under Customs Act (Section 114A) equals duty, not duty and interest. Detailed analysis of the case.
