Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2024 November Day 14 - Thursday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
November 14, 2024

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Corporate Laws Insolvency & Bankruptcy PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Court quashes blocking of Tax Credit Ledger for lack of reasons and natural justice.

    Rule 86A of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which allows blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger, has been held unconstitutional by the High Court due to violation of principles of natural justice. The Court observed that no pre-decisional hearing was provided to the petitioner, and the impugned order lacked independent or cogent reasons, relying solely on reports from the Enforcement Authority, which amounts to "borrowed satisfaction." The Court relied on its previous decision in K-9-ENTERPRISES, where it held that in the absence of valid and sufficient material constituting "reasons to believe," the mandatory requirements/prerequisites/parameters contained in Rule 86A were not fulfilled, and the respondents were not entitled to block the Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking the said Rule. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.05.2024, blocking the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger u/r 86A, was quashed by the High Court for being illegal and arbitrary.

  • Goods in transit with valid docs, but registration suspended: Court intervenes.

    The summary focuses on the challenge to proceedings initiated u/s 129 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, involving a penalty order for the movement of goods without proper documents. The key points are: The goods were accompanied by dated documents, but the petitioner's registration was suspended by the jurisdictional authorities after the documents were issued. A coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the Halder Enterprises case, held that if goods are found with proper tax invoices and e-way bills, the circular dated 31.12.2018 would apply, deeming the petitioner as the owner, and the goods should be released u/s 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. In the present case, the respondents did not dispute the presence of proper tax invoices and e-way bills, and the action was solely based on the suspension of registration. The High Court, relying on its previous decisions, set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.

  • Municipal Corp challenges tax notices, claiming services exempt/nil-rated under GST laws.

    The petitioners challenged the show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the respondent under the CGST Act, IGST Act, and MGST Act, contending that the services rendered by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) are exempted or subject to a nil tax rate under the relevant exemption notifications. The key issues are: 1) The jurisdiction of the SCNs, as the petitioners claim the services are exempt or nil-rated. 2) The factual element regarding each demand must be examined against the backdrop of the exemption or nil rate notifications. 3) The adjudicating authority must determine whether the taxed activities relate to functions entrusted to MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. The High Court held that the petitions cannot bypass the statutory alternate remedies, as the issue of exemption applicability is debatable and requires factual examination. Splitting or quashing the SCNs is not permissible where arguable issues exist on both sides. The contention of the SCNs being wholly without jurisdiction cannot be accepted, and the petitions were dismissed.

  • Dismissal of plea to summon GST official, petitioners' rights clarified in evidence production stage.

    In a case concerning the dismissal of an application to summon an official from the GST Department in Ludhiana along with the GST 3B return record, the High Court held that the petitioners do not have the right to summon witnesses at the stage when the respondent-complainant is producing evidence. The petitioners have the right to cross-examine the respondent-complainant and witnesses, and confront them with documents, but they are not entitled to summon witnesses during this stage. The petitioners sought to produce the GST 3B return document, which they can present to the respondent-complainant or witnesses without summoning an official. The trial Magistrate's well-reasoned order dismissing the petitioners' application was upheld by the High Court, finding no merit in the petition.

  • Land purchase, construction GST credit restricted; SC upholds CGST Act provisions.

    Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which restricts input tax credit on GST paid for purchase of land and construction thereon, has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought to claim input tax credit on GST paid for land purchase and construction. However, the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. Versus M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & Ors., where the constitutional validity of these provisions was upheld. The petitions are disposed of, allowing the petitioners to file claims for availing input tax credit, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

  • Gambling Site Loophole? No Cheating Offence if No Victim Identified.

    Interpretation of Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in the context of online betting. The court held that for an offence u/s 415 (cheating) to be punishable u/s 420, there must be a person who has been deceived from the inception with a dishonest intention to commit fraud. The court found no evidence of any person being deceived or hoodwinked in the present case. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded that the necessary ingredients for offences u/ss 415 and 420 IPC were not met. The state's investigation spanning over three years failed to identify any victims or evidence against the petitioners. Allowing further proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court quashed the FIR to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  • CBIC order blocking company's ECL quashed for lack of reasons and hearing.

    The court quashed the order blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of the petitioner u/r 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The respondents did not provide a pre-decisional hearing to the petitioner, nor did the impugned order contain cogent reasons to believe that blocking the ECL was necessary, violating principles of natural justice. The court relied on the K-9-Enterprises case, where it was held that the mandatory requirements of Rule 86A were not fulfilled, and the respondents could not rely on the satisfaction of another officer. The impugned order merely stated that the supplier was found non-existent or not conducting business, without providing independent or cogent reasons. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed for lack of valid reasons and violation of principles of natural justice.

  • Tax Credit Dispute: Court Orders ITC Unblocking & Release Per Prior Ruling.

    The court held that the issue in controversy regarding the legality of sub-section (4) to Section 16 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, concerning the date of availment of input tax credit (ITC) in the books of account of the petitioner, is directly and squarely covered by its previous judgment in M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & Others. In that case, the court directed the respondents to unblock and release the credit balance of the petitioner in their ITC Ledger/Account immediately and without delay. Consequently, the present petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of accordingly.

  • Income Tax

  • Agricultural land sale: Proper inquiry on distance from municipal limits ignored, inviting tax exemption denial.

    The assessee claimed exemption from long-term capital gains tax on the sale of agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed distance from municipal limits. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the assessee's claim without proper inquiry or verification from relevant authorities like the District Town Planner (DTP). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263, holding the AO's order erroneous as it lacked inquiry and application of mind. The High Court upheld the PCIT's order, observing that the AO failed to conduct any inquiry to verify the land's agricultural status and distance from municipal limits. The AO relied solely on a self-serving statement from the assessee without corroborating evidence. The Court ruled that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests due to lack of effective inquiry and non-application of mind, justifying revision u/s 263.

  • Cash gifts worth Rs. 10 lakh from Privy Purse account to trusts deemed taxable income, overturning Tribunal's order.

    The High Court found that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the source of cash gifts was perverse and failed to consider the available evidence. The bank statement of the Privy Purse account clearly showed that cheques and cash totaling Rs. 10 lakh were released from this account to the two trusts on various dates. Therefore, the court held that the gift amount was made out of the Privy Purse, requiring further adjudication. The court's decision favored the assessee, overturning the Tribunal's order on this issue.

  • Foreign Company Avoids Tax by Splitting Contracts, Court Rejects Permanent Establishment Claim.

    The assessee had artificially split the composite contract to avoid establishment of a permanent establishment (PE) in India and tax payment. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee has a PE in India in the form of a fixed place and dependent agent PE (DAPE) through GE Power India Ltd. (GEPIL). However, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, on similar facts for the same assessee for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, had held that there is no business connection of the assessee in India, and no fixed place PE or construction PE exists. Consequently, the provisions of Section 44BBB of the Act are not applicable. Therefore, the receipts from offshore supplies and the amount received from GEPIL are not taxable in India. The addition made by the AO by bringing offshore supply receipts to tax is directed to be deleted. Interest u/s 234B is consequential and the AO is directed to levy it accordingly.

  • Cash deposits queried; assessee denied fair hearing, order set aside for fresh adjudication with opportunity to justify.

    The case concerns the reopening of assessment u/s 147 based on information from the Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS) about cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The Assessing Officer made an addition of unexplained money u/s 69A, partially accepting the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits but rejecting others due to lack of documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of a fair chance to present their case due to procedural deficiencies and reliance on email communication inaccessible to the assessee. The order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

  • Mushroom farming income exempt from tax under agricultural income provision.

    Income derived from cultivation and sale of white button mushrooms was characterized as agricultural income exempt u/s 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, following the precedent set by the Inventaa Industries (P.) Ltd. case [2018 (8) TMI 69 - ITAT HYDERABAD] with identical facts. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, treating the cultivation and sale of white button mushrooms as an agricultural activity, resulting in the income being exempt from taxation u/s 10(1).

  • Financial advisor fees allowed as related to income earning despite disallowance u/s 57(iii.

    The assessee claimed expenditure relating to financial advisor's fees, which was disallowed u/s 57(iii) as it did not relate to earning such income. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajendra Prasad Moody's case, as the assessee had a legal dispute pending related to earning income during the year. Regarding the disallowance u/s 37(1) for expenses incurred on bills/vouchers, the ITAT rejected the Revenue's ground, as the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out any specific element of such expenditure. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the ad-hoc disallowance, as the expenses were necessary and genuine for the business or profession, as substantiated by the assessee.

  • Unaccounted Sales Estimated from Notebooks, WhatsApp; Corresponding Expenses Incurred; Profit Estimation by GP Rates Reasonable.

    Assessee's unaccounted sales were estimated based on notebooks, diaries, and WhatsApp conversations. Only real income can be taxed. While unaccounted sales existed, corresponding unaccounted expenses were also incurred. AO cannot accept part of the transaction. CIT(A) estimated profit by applying regular GP rates, which is logical and reasonable. Circular transactions within group entities lack the character of income and should be excluded from unaccounted sales receipts estimation. Bogus expenditure disallowance at 12.5% is reasonable to plug revenue leakages. Unaccounted cash receipts additions for certain years based on unsigned excel sheets lack evidentiary value without corroboration. Additions based on notebooks seized from a non-employee were reasonably estimated by applying GP rates. Email communication suggesting accounting adjustments cannot be presumed as manipulations without corroboration, especially when accounts were audited without adverse remarks. Relevant legal principles were applied in estimating real income and making reasonable additions/disallowances.

  • Customs valuation discrepancy resolved: Gross assessable value difference not income suppression.

    The assessee recorded all imports in its books, but the AO presumed non-declaration based on the export-import summary data without considering credit notes. The duty paid matched, and the difference was in the gross assessable value, not the actual cost. The AO made an addition without proper verification, rejecting the assessee's explanation. Even though there was a difference in reconciling the gross assessable value, it did not lead to non-disclosure of income. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to substantiate how recording imports would result in undervaluation or suppression of income. Therefore, the issue was decided in favor of the assessee as there was no involvement of undisclosed income.

  • Revenue appeal dismissed due to low tax effect; exceptions may revive it.

    Maintainability of revenue appeals before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below a certain threshold. According to CBDT instructions, subordinate authorities should not challenge CIT(Appeals) orders before the Tribunal if the tax effect due to relief granted is less than Rs. 60,00,000, unless the case falls within specified exceptions. In the instant case, since the tax effect is below the threshold and no exceptions apply, the revenue appeal is dismissed for lack of tax effect. However, if upon re-verification the tax effect exceeds the limit or an exception applies, the Revenue can file a miscellaneous application to revive the appeal.

  • Taxpayer failed to justify abnormal transport expense hike without proper bills/vouchers. Evidence inadequate.

    Onus on assessee to explain exorbitant increase in transport expenses and support with proper bills/vouchers, which assessee failed. Sample bills/vouchers not for transport expense, lacking lorry details, origin and destination. Bills for purchase of materials like sand, mentioning 'transportation' but not actual transport expenses. Evidence not explaining abnormal increase in transport expense despite substantial increase in petrol expense. Cogent explanation and complete bills/vouchers lacking, hence addition confirmed by CIT(A) upheld by ITAT. Decided against assessee.

  • Indian firm's foreign taxes credited for services rendered in Japan and other nations.

    Partnership firm rendered professional services in Japan, taxes withheld there. Firm claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) which was denied by tax authorities. ITAT held that under India-Japan tax treaty, firm's income taxable as fees for technical services, entitling it to FTC for Japanese taxes withheld. Even if interpretations differ between residence and source countries on treaty provisions, FTC cannot be denied when source country levies tax. ITAT allowed FTC for taxes withheld in Japan and other countries like Nepal, Brazil, China and Malaysia based on earlier ruling favoring the firm. Assessee's appeal allowed granting FTC.

  • Corporate Law

  • Stock Exchange Overreach? Court Quashes Direction Blocking Share Transfer.

    This case pertains to the transfer of shares and the issuance of a duplicate share certificate. The key points are: The National Stock Exchange (NSE) issued a "stop transfer" direction to the transfer agent, citing default by a trading member in making payments. The petitioner challenged this direction, arguing that the shares did not constitute assets of the defaulting member. The court held that the NSE, being a stock exchange, is covered under the definition of 'State' and amenable to writ jurisdiction. The impugned communication was neither an order nor a decision under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act (SCRA), and the NSE failed to show authority for issuing such a direction. The court quashed the impugned communication and consequential proceedings by the NSE against the transfer agent, allowing the petition for the issuance of a duplicate share certificate as the shares were still recorded in the petitioner's name.

  • IBC

  • Director's disqualification challenged in financial creditor's insolvency petition against corporate debtor.

    Disqualification of a director of the financial creditor to sign the Section 7 application was challenged. The application u/s 7, signed by the director of the financial creditor company, was rejected. The appellant contended that the Infracon company, where Sachdeva was also a director, had been struck off due to non-filing of financial statements for three years, attracting director disqualification u/s 164. The Tribunal held that Section 164(2) requires non-filing of financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years, which was not applicable in this case. The company was incorporated in 2014, and the last balance sheet filing date was 31.03.2015. The proviso to Section 167(1), inserted in 2018, was also not applicable to disqualify Sachdeva as a director in the financial creditor company. As the Infracon company had already been struck off when the Section 7 application was filed, Sachdeva could not continue as its director but remained competent to act as a director in the financial creditor company. The Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting the application was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

  • Corporate Insolvency Dispute: Court Overrules Premature Dismissal, Orders Resolution Process.

    The Adjudicating Authority erred by dismissing the Section 95 application without appointing a Resolution Professional and following the statutory process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The principle of waiver is inapplicable as the Appellant did not consciously abandon any existing legal right. The Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to consider objections on the merits of the Section 95 application before appointing a Resolution Professional, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Dilip B. Jiwrajka's case. The order dismissing the Section 95 application is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.

  • Claim adjustment allowed, security amount set-off permitted, CIRP regulation applied.

    The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of refund and adjustment of security amount in a claim. It examined Clause 8 of the Claim Form and found that the security amount was already adjusted in the claim itself. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on a Supreme Court judgment concerning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which permitted set-off of accounts under Regulation 29. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the anticipated claim adjustment by the Appellant could not be permitted, as the present case involved an actual claim filed with adjustment of the security claim. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority's direction to pay Rs. 1,15,33,600/- could not be sustained, and the Appeal was partly allowed.

  • Security deposit for lease premises deemed operational debt, not financial debt under IBC.

    Classification of a security deposit made by the appellant for a lease deed with the corporate debtor, as either a financial debt or an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: The security deposit is a claim within the meaning of the IBC. To qualify as a financial debt u/s 5(8), there must be a disbursal of money against consideration for the time value of money. However, the security deposit was a refundable corpus amount without interest, not disbursed for time value of money, lacking elements of commercial borrowing. Therefore, it does not satisfy the definition of financial debt. An operational debt u/s 5(21) relates to claims for provision of goods, services, employment, or government dues. The security deposit, being an advance for prospective occupation and use of leased premises, can be considered a claim for services, satisfying the definition of operational debt. The NCLAT held that the security deposit should be classified as an operational debt, and the appellant should be accorded the status of an operational creditor. The resolution professional was directed to admit the appellant's claim as an operational creditor and allow the appellant to substitute the relevant form.

  • Financial creditor's application admitted, consent decree default beyond Section 10A purview.

    The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor was not barred by Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Corporate Debtor had committed defaults on 21.12.2017 and 29.06.2018, leading to accounts being declared as NPA by lenders. Although assignment was made in favor of the Financial Creditor in 2019 and a settlement was agreed upon on 26.04.2019, which was not honored, constituting a further default prior to the Section 10A period. The Section 7 application was based on the default arising from the Consent Decree dated 29.08.2022, which cannot be pegged within the Section 10A period. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in admitting the Section 7 application, as it was not hit by Section 10A of the IBC.

  • Indian Laws

  • Public-private contracts can't unilaterally appoint sole arbitrator or curate panel for other party's selection. Equal treatment applies.

    The principles of independence and impartiality of arbitral tribunals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 were evaluated in relation to party autonomy. Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator or curation of panel for other party's selection was examined. The majority held that equal treatment applies at appointment stage, prohibiting unilateral appointments or curated panels by one party. Such clauses in public-private contracts violate Article 14. Waiver u/s 12(5) is possible post-disputes. The ruling applies prospectively to three-member tribunals. A minority view permitted unilateral appointments if arbitrators meet eligibility criteria, limiting judicial intervention at appointment stage. The interplay between contractual autonomy and statutory duty to constitute independent tribunals was analyzed, with the latter being a non-derogable public policy under the Contract Act. Courts must scrutinize agreements to ensure compliance with this requirement while respecting party autonomy.

  • Fugitive billionaire seeks to quash summons, challenges economic offender charges.

    The petition filed u/ss 4, 10, and 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act challenges the summoning order and seeks to quash the miscellaneous application. The court examined the scope of jurisdiction exercised by the Special Judge in issuing the summons. The complainant stated the accused owns properties listed in Annexures A to A3, acquired through proceeds of crime exceeding Rs. 100 crores, warranting application of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. A combined reading of Sections 4 and 10 requires the Special Court to issue notice upon filing an application u/s 4 as per the prescribed Rules. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act is a special statute, and the argument regarding "duly filed" must be understood per the Rules. The complainant provided detailed information and supporting documents, recording the "reason to believe." The petitioner's arguments were rejected, as the respondent pointed out non-disclosure of the UK address, invoking the court's jurisdiction without clean hands. The petitioner could have appeared before the Special Judge u/s 11 but invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction instead. The court found it inappropriate to interfere, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, and the availability of Section 11 proceedings.

  • Hybrid car bought before tax exemption policy, registration after; no refund eligibility despite later registration.

    Exemption scheme or policy cannot be applied retrospectively. Petitioner purchased a hybrid vehicle and paid applicable tax before the exemption policy was introduced. Although vehicle was registered after policy date, tax payment occurred earlier. Supreme Court precedent mandates strict interpretation of exemption notification eligibility criteria. Petitioner ineligible for tax refund under the exemption policy since tax was paid prior to policy introduction. High Court dismissed petition seeking refund direction as no case was made out.

  • VAT

  • Tax notices validly issued for revision assessments despite errors.

    Notices issued u/ss 84 and 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were valid. The time limitation for revising assessment orders is not an issue if a notice is issued in time. The High Court had previously dealt with a similar case involving Section 27. According to the proviso to Section 22(2), assessment years were deemed completed on 30.06.2012. Any revision proceedings had to be completed within six years for deemed assessments u/s 27. Mentioning the wrong provision or not mentioning it does not invalidate an order if the authority had requisite jurisdiction. The 23.07.2014 notices, though erroneously mentioning Section 84, were intended for revision u/s 27(1)(a). The assessments completed on 04.01.2021, 31.12.2020, and 07.01.2021 were within the limitation period prescribed u/s 27(1)(a). The writ petitions were dismissed.

  • Central Excise

  • Excess excise duty charged but CENVAT credited to govt; Sec 11D demand set aside.

    The appellant paid excise duty on the removal of inputs as such, based on the transaction value. However, this excise duty was found to be in excess of the actual CENVAT credit involved in such removal. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that if an assessee collects an amount in the name of excise duty and retains it, the same must be credited to the Central Government. In this case, although the appellant charged excise duty over and above the CENVAT credit involved, the total amount collected from the customer was paid by debiting the CENVAT account. According to the CESTAT judgment in Shivam Metals, if the amount collected in the name of excise duty is paid to the government, the demand for such amount cannot be raised invoking Section 11D. Therefore, the demand u/s 11D in the present case is not sustainable, and the impugned orders are set aside, allowing the appeals.

  • Bio-fungicides & bio-insecticides misclassified, ignoring binding precedents. Order quashed for defiance of judicial discipline.

    Commissioner failed to follow binding Tribunal precedents on classification of bio-fungicides and bio-insecticides, erroneously believing Supreme Court appeals left issue open. Tribunal clarified Supreme Court appeals were on different issues, not classification. Commissioner bound by Tribunal precedents, cannot independently decide contrary. Order set aside for not following judicial discipline and binding precedents, displaying mala fides. Appeal allowed.

  • Procedural lapses ignored for area-based exemption due to substantial compliance.

    Area based exemption notification eligibility criteria were substantially met despite procedural lapses. Appellants commenced increased production capacity after substantial expansion before the specified date, rendering them eligible for exemption from that date onwards. Mere procedural violation of not filing declaration should not preclude exemption benefit. Department failed to establish suppression of facts or intent to evade duty payment, hence extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Penalties imposed u/s 11AC set aside. Appeal partly allowed.


Articles


Notifications


Circulars / Instructions / Orders


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2024 (11) TMI 600
  • 2024 (11) TMI 599
  • 2024 (11) TMI 598
  • 2024 (11) TMI 590
  • 2024 (11) TMI 589
  • 2024 (11) TMI 588
  • 2024 (11) TMI 587
  • 2024 (11) TMI 586
  • 2024 (11) TMI 585
  • 2024 (11) TMI 584
  • 2024 (11) TMI 583
  • 2024 (11) TMI 582
  • 2024 (11) TMI 581
  • 2024 (11) TMI 580
  • 2024 (11) TMI 579
  • 2024 (11) TMI 578
  • 2024 (11) TMI 577
  • 2024 (11) TMI 576
  • 2024 (11) TMI 575
  • Income Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 597
  • 2024 (11) TMI 574
  • 2024 (11) TMI 573
  • 2024 (11) TMI 572
  • 2024 (11) TMI 571
  • 2024 (11) TMI 570
  • 2024 (11) TMI 569
  • 2024 (11) TMI 568
  • 2024 (11) TMI 567
  • 2024 (11) TMI 566
  • 2024 (11) TMI 565
  • 2024 (11) TMI 564
  • 2024 (11) TMI 563
  • 2024 (11) TMI 562
  • 2024 (11) TMI 561
  • 2024 (11) TMI 560
  • 2024 (11) TMI 559
  • 2024 (11) TMI 558
  • 2024 (11) TMI 557
  • 2024 (11) TMI 556
  • 2024 (11) TMI 541
  • Customs

  • 2024 (11) TMI 596
  • 2024 (11) TMI 595
  • 2024 (11) TMI 594
  • Corporate Laws

  • 2024 (11) TMI 555
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2024 (11) TMI 554
  • 2024 (11) TMI 553
  • 2024 (11) TMI 552
  • 2024 (11) TMI 551
  • 2024 (11) TMI 550
  • PMLA

  • 2024 (11) TMI 593
  • Service Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 592
  • 2024 (11) TMI 591
  • 2024 (11) TMI 549
  • Central Excise

  • 2024 (11) TMI 548
  • 2024 (11) TMI 547
  • 2024 (11) TMI 546
  • 2024 (11) TMI 545
  • 2024 (11) TMI 544
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 543
  • Indian Laws

  • 2024 (11) TMI 542
  • 2024 (11) TMI 540
  • 2024 (11) TMI 539
  • 2024 (11) TMI 538
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates