Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The AAR, Gujarat, in the matter of M/s. Nandini Ashram Trust [Advance Ruling no. GUJ/GAAR/R/2023/18 dated April 26, 2023] ruled that since the assessee was providing accommodation to pilgrims outside the boundary of the temple and the rooms rent char

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central GST Delhi - III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8996 of 2019 dated May 19, 2023) held that neither is there any compulsion to levy development fee nor is the collection conditional

The CESTAT, Chennai in the case of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. The Commissioner of G.S.T and Central Excise [Service Tax Appeal No. 41500 of 2019 dated April 26,2023] held that recovery of liquidated damages from defaulting party cannot

The CESTAT, Kolkata in M/s. Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Sangh v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax [Service Tax Appeal No.566 of 2011 dated May 11,2023] held that, there should be mens rea to evade payment of service tax for demand of service

This is a summary of a legal case where the petitioner is seeking to quash a seizure order issued by the respondent under Section 67 of the UPGST Act.

The CESTAT, Chennai in M/s. Rani Meyyammai Towers v. Commissioner of Service Tax[Final Order No. 40307-40308 of 2023 dated April 26, 2023] has set aside the order demanding Service Tax on construction of flats under the category of Construction of Co

The Supreme Court has set aside the Rajasthan High Court's order of allowing the loss claimed by assessee on account of confiscation of silver bars by the Customs department, as 'business loss' under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ass

The Supreme Court has held that in a case of negligence committed by Doctor, the Insurance Company which covered the Doctor would have to reimburse the compensation to the complainant to the extent of its liability under the Insurance Policy as, agai

The insertion of time of commencement of the policy on a particular date is perfectly in accordance with law and it does not contravene any provisions either of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Insurance Act.,1938.

In the case on hand, there was no insurance coverage on the date of the accident and so, the respondent No. 1 insurance company is not liable. The Tribunal has correctly found and directed respondent No. 2, owner of the lorry to pay the compensation