|
|
|
| « From the Courts » |
|---|
 Excess ITC has to be Refunded back to Dealer, can’t be carried Forward for Adjustment of Future Tax Liability: Madras HC | | Dy. CIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. S.R. Credits Pvt. Ltd. 4828-29/24, 1st Floor, Prahlad Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi | | Urmilla Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya A-21, First Floor, Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi Vs. ACIT Central Circle, Karnal | | Shri Surat Singh, VPO Bhapra, Samhalka, vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward : 4, Panipat. | | Dy. CIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. S.R. Credits Pvt. Ltd. 4, 1st Floor, Prahlad Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi | | SC directs DRT to Transmit Rent received from Property attached to the Amrapali Account | | Vardhman Automobiles (P.) Ltd., Opposite Air Force School, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon- Vs. The ITO, TDS Ward, Gurgaon. | | M/s. Sheela Foam Ltd., (Foprmerly known as Sheela Foam Pvt.Ltd.), 37/2, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi. | | ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi Vs Sh. Sohan Singh Dhingra (HUF), 85, Golf Links, New Delhi | | Manoj Kumar Jain C/o. O.P. Sapra & Associates C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi Vs. DCIT Central Circle Income Tax Office, 3rd Floor, CGO Complex -1, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad | | M/s Sheela Foam Ltd. C-55, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi Vs The DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi. | | Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, C/o-M/s. RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi-110049 vs ACIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi. | | Council of Handicrafts Development Corporation West Block No. 7, R. K. Puram New Delhi Vs. ITO Exemptions, Ward-1(3) New Delhi | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| « Manoj Kumar Jain C/o. O.P. Sapra & Associates C-763, New... | Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, C/o-M/s. RRA Taxindia, D-28, South... » |
M/s Sheela Foam Ltd. C-55, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi Vs The DCIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi. |
|
|
| May, 19th 2020 |
The present stay application has been moved by the applicant seeking extension of stay against the recovery of outstanding demand
of Rs.1,54,14,825/-.
2. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR for the applicant has requested to seek
permission to withdraw the captioned stay application, for which Ld. DR for the Revenue has not objected. Accordingly, the prayer of
applicant is granted. Thus, the stay application of applicant is dismissed as ‘withdrawn’.
For more information
|
|
|
