Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th July, 2018 of ld. CIT (A), Ajmer arising from the penalty order passed under section 271A of the IT Act for the assessment year 2015-16. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee

Leave granted. With consent, the appeal was heard. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 24.07.2015. The respondent (hereafter “Asiatic Steel”) had filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking refund of

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, dated 19.03.2018 and 21.08.2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2016-17, respectively, which in turn arises from the respective assessmen

Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) had received certain complaints from New Delhi Television Limited (hereinafter referred to as “NDTV”) on July 16, 2013 (1st complaint), December 27, 2013 (2nd complaint) and J

Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department, Tax Tower, Thiruvananthapuram-695002. 2. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, 2nd Floor, Bhai Vir Sing

M/s. Pareena Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., C-7A, 2nd Floor, Omax City Center Mall, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurugram (Haryana)-122002

Sri B.R. Sridhar (called as the 'Applicant' hereinafter), No.2328, 1st Floor, 20th Cross, Banashankari 2nd Stage, K.R.Road, Bangalore-560070, an un-registered person have filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act,2017 read

Director-General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, 2nd Floor, Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan, Bhai Vir Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001. 

At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of CGST, Act 2017 and SGST, Act 2017 are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a me

This Court is once again, within the span of a year, called upon to decide the constitutionality of various provisions concerning the selection, appointment, tenure, conditions of service, and ancillary matters relating to various tribunals, 19 in nu