Search Results for "assessment error"

2276 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 2276 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeals in Antidumping Duty Gap Period Case. Tribunal's Decision That No Antidumping Duty Can Be Levied During Period Between Expiry of Provisional Duty and Imposition of Final Duty Under Rule 21 of Customs Tariff (Antidumping) Rules, 1995 Upheld.

The Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, filed appeals against orders of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 1 Aug...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Partially Allows Challenge to SAFEMA Forfeiture Order — Agricultural Land Acquired Prior to Detention Exempt from Forfeiture. Property acquired before the 'illegal' period under Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA cannot be forfeited; appellate authority's order partly confirmed.

The petitioner, Ranchhodbhai Bhagwanbhai Tandel (since deceased, through his legal heir Naresh Ranchhodbhai Tandel), filed a criminal writ petition un...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Sales Tax Reference by Dealer in Setoff Disallowance Case. Rule 41D of Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 restricts setoff to raw materials and consumable stores, not capital assets like scientific equipment used for research and development.

The case is a sales tax reference under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arising from an order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal date...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Disallowance of Medical Expenditure on Foreign Tour for Eye Treatment as Personal Expenditure Under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Expenditure incurred for pre-operation investigation of eyes held to be personal in nature, not allowable as business expenditure.

The case pertains to a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the Bombay High Court. The ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Termination of Probationary District Judge for Unsatisfactory Performance. Termination under Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) of Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 is valid and not stigmatic.

The petitioner, Smt. Smita Rajendra Kadu, was appointed as a District Judge (direct recruitment) under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. S...