Expert Knowledge,
Straight from Practitioners.
Tax tips, legal guides, and financial advice written by the same verified CAs, Advocates, and Advisors you can consult on ConsultEase.
[update] Registration cant be kept suspended for long time
The case is updated on 12-01-2024. The updated copy is attached here. The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Cases Covered: M/S TESZLA MULTI TRADE Versus UNION OF INDIA Facts of the cases: It appears that the petitioner has been issued Show Cause Notice for
CA Shafaly GirdharwalNov 8, 2023Section 28 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 28 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita on TEXT : A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Sanhita,–– (a) if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and
SC decided to not to proceed with SLP due to threshold of 2 cr in Income tax matter
Considering the minimal notice provided and the relatively low tax amount in question, we are disinclined to adjudicate the current special leave petition. This stance aligns with Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue,
Section 27 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 27 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita on TEXT : Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of person with mental illness, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or
Section 25 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 25 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 On Text: Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt,
Section 21 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 21 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on TexT: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge
GST LitigationFuel provided free of cost by recipient will be included in the value
The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Cases Covered: M/s Shree Jeet Transport Vs UNION OF INDIA Citations: State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro Tech Private Limited,. Partington v. Attorney General Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg. & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. v. CIT State Bank of
CA Shafaly GirdharwalNov 7, 2023Section 23 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 23 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on text: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of
GST ComplianceRectification of GSTR 1 allowed by the court after time barred
The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Cases Covered: Varshan Enterprises Vs Office of the GST Council Citation Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India Pentacle Plant Machineries Private Limited v. Office of the GST Council, New Delhi and others Commissioner of CGST & Central
CA Shafaly GirdharwalNov 7, 2023Section 24 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 24 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on Text: In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of
Section 22 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 22 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on text: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of mental illness, is incapable of knowing the nature
GST LitigationThe ITC was allowed even if the by-product is not taxable. It was a judgment of VAT but is applicable on GST also.
The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Cases Covered: M/S MODI NATURALS LTD Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL Citation State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro Tech Private Limited,. Partington v. Attorney General Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg. & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. v. CIT State Bank
CA Shafaly GirdharwalNov 7, 2023