Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The credit will not available to the extent the same is embedded in the cost of food recovered from such employees. The AAAR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Vs Ultratech Cement [2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom)].

The Commission notes that the bid rigging is defined in explanation under Section 3(3)(d) of the Act as, any agreement, between enterprises or persons engaged in identical or similar production or trading of goods or provision of services, which has

These appeals arise out of common order passed by the NCLT Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal') by virtue whereof the Tribunal declined to sanction the scheme of demerger on the ground that several issues were pending finalization

The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the matter of M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited & anr. v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Durgapur Charge & Ors. [M.A.T No.2027 of 2022 with I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022 dated January 5, 2023] set aside the ruling pa

The AAR, Tamil Nadu in the matter of Ola Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [Order No. 31/AAR/2022 dated July 29, 2022]has held that the transfer of rights to perform integration testing, installation, and marketing of software from an e-vehicle manufac

The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in M.P. Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No. 3796 of 2022 dated March 9, 2022] quashed and set aside the demand order passed in Form DRC-07 by the Revenue Department, on the grounds

The applicant recovers nominal amount from the employees for canteen facility - The applicant discharge GST @5% on the taxable value which is sum total of the cost of the canteen service provider plus 10% notional mark up.

The Kerala High Court- in this case interpreted the meaning of "Month" for the purpose of ascertaining the limitation period of Six Months as stipulated under Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the provisions of section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lays down conditions for imposition of penalty for repayments of loans and deposits in cash, where the amount exceeds Rs. 20,000 in violati

THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT –when an Insurance Company has not accepted the liability under the Insurance Policy and has repudiated the claim as "No Claim", then such denial of claim would not itself amount to an arbitrable dispute. The I