The Tribunal held that in the absence of any power of recall or review being available to the Tribunal, the present case at hand does not fall within the confines of Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 nor Rule 11 of the NCALT Rules, 2016. As recourse, the Applicant should have approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the Code.
Depreciation under section 32 could not be claimed on an undivided share of land as assessee had shown the land separately in the block of assets which was not entitled for depreciation.
Whether AO is correct in rejecting the claim of assessee regarding the deduction u/s 54F, which was made first time during Reassessment Proceedings?
It is a settled principle of law that where addition to assessee’s income is made on estimate basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
Renu Devi and another Vs State of Punjab and others (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Perusal of the photographs attached with the petition, shows that at the time of marriage ceremony, the petitioners and other attending persons were not wearing the masks, which is otherwise necessary in view of COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the petitioners are […]
In re V E Commercial Vehicles Limited (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) Whether mounting of Bus/ Truck Body by the job worker on the chassis supplied by the principle for which the applicant charged fabrication charges including cost of certain material that was consumed during the process of job work would be classified as supply of […]
Despite the repeated appraisal of arbitral clauses in contracts between parties by both the legislature and judiciary as the key to arbitration becoming the preferred mode for commercial dispute resolution as long as such clauses remain impartial, several Government organizations and Public Sector Undertakings have one-sided clauses for dispute resolution in their agreements. The Bombay High Court also took note of the same.
The Court herein has settled that when the party has been given enough opportunity accorded to them and has failed to take advantage of the same during the arbitral proceedings, it cannot later go on to say that fair hearing was not given to the party.
Where the document was executed by the parties prior to the revision of the fair value, the valuation need only be done in accordance with the fair value existing as on the date of execution of the document and the stamp duty for the purpose of registration need be calculated accordingly.
Mohit Vijay Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court) In the present case, petitioner filed bail application u/s 439 CrPC for the offense of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. High Court States that, the grant or denial is regulated, to […]
