Judiciary

HC on compensation for reduced area than area actually used by Govt.

Dulari Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh & others (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Petitioner owns an area admeasuring 2.00 acres bearing khasra No.266 & 267 at village Palod, PH No.69/18 RI Block Mandir Hasod, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur. A part of the said area belonging to the petitioner has been used for construction of road by the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA)...

Read More

State Govt decision to not to recruit Teachers cannot be interfered

Smt. Madhu Sahu, Vs State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Thus, the question involved in the present writ petitions has been considered by the Supreme Court in number of occasions clearly holding that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment and empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by...

Read More

Governor can suspend PSC Member only after reference of matter by President to SC

Dr (Smt) Mangala Sridhar Vs The State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)

The Constitution contemplates various scenarios in which a Governor can exercise his discretion dehors the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as for example, the powers under Article 174(2): dissolution of legislative assembly; Article 356: advising the President for proclamation of emergency; Article 167: calling for information...

Read More

Average cost method of valuing inventories is an accepted method

CIT Vs Uday M. Ghare (Bombay High Court)

Having heard Mr. Pinto at some length and perusing with his assistance the order, dated 19­7­2013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.4125/Mum/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-­10, we are of the view that the same does not raise any substantial question of law....

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied for bonafide mistakes in making wrong claim

Wadhwa Estate & Developers India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30th December 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)– 53, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 2,57,246, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 2011-12....

Read More

Constitution not allow a MP to make defamatory statement outside Parliament

Narinder Batra & Anr Vs. Kirti Azad (Delhi High Court)

It was held that Article 105(2) though gives immunity in respect of everything said in Parliament but subject to the limitation that it should have been said during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament....

Read More

NCALT penalises for non-appointment of whole time secretary

M/s. Gopala Polyplast Ltd. & Ors. Vs Registrar of Companies, Ahemdabad, Gujarat

The Appellant being not satisfied with the compounding of fine has challenged the order dated 30th September, 2016 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, in TP No.154/621A/NCLT/AHM/2016 (New), CA No.90/621A/CLB/MB/2013 (Old)....

Read More
Posted Under: Corporate Law | |

Addition by CIT(A) without Opportunity to Assessee is invalid

Shri Vinodbhai Naranbhai Vaghani Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Section 251(2) provides that the Commissioner (Appeal) shall not embark on enhancement of an assessment unless the assessee has been granted a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such We find no reference to the issuance of enhancement notice in the appellate order of the CIT(A). ...

Read More

No TDS on mere reimbursement of expenses without Income element

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Devendra Kumar Dugar ( ITAT Kolkta)

It is crystal clear proposition of law that when there is no element of income and there is mere reimbursement made there is no question of deduction of TDS....

Read More

Section 54F exemption eligible on multiple flats if in same address

CIT Vs Shri Gumanmal jain (Madras High Court)

In this case assessee having got 15 flats along with his two sons will not disentitle him from getting the benefit U/s. 54F of IT Act only on ground that all the 15 flats are not in the same Block, particularly in the light of admitted factual position that all the 15 flats are located at same address....

Read More
Page 4 of 924« First...23456...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,305)
Company Law (3,191)
Custom Duty (6,358)
DGFT (3,307)
Excise Duty (3,975)
Fema / RBI (3,102)
Finance (3,265)
Income Tax (24,098)
SEBI (2,636)
Service Tax (3,244)

Search Posts by Date

March 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031