Hon’ble Tribunal uphold the observations of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was observed that in order to assess the asset/bank account held by a third party in the hands of the respondent assessee the department has to prove that the assessee has direct beneficial interest in the asset/bank account held by third party.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner to operate his bank accounts and postal accounts in question, which were attached by the Respondent as time limit of 180 days under section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were expired.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that reimbursements cannot be termed as Fees for Technical Services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 (4) of India US DTAA.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Apex court while allowing the Appeal have made distinction between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ and have held that having tendered the ‘resignation’, the respondent has to suffer the consequences and now cannot be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent wanted was ‘premature retirement’ and not ‘resignation’.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal relied upon the previous Judgments passed in the assesse own case and have observed that agents of the assessee did not have the necessary authority to conclude the contracts of the assessee and, on that premise, it was held that there is no agency PE of assessee in India and therefore Assessee was not taxable in India.
M. K. Saha and Co. Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that corrigendum under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable in law since in the name of rectification of clerical or arithmetical or typographical mistake neither any additional […]
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the recovery Notice issued by SEBI as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and no mechanism/ calculation was provided by the recovery officer on the basis of which demand could be sustained.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal provided relief to the Appellant by allowing the CENVAT credit on tower materials and prefabricated buildings or shelters by relying on the Judgment of Vodafone pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which have relied on the Judgment of Solid and Correct Engineering Works which laid down the permanency test.
In present facts of the case, the circular issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) was challenged which prescribed separate conditions for diploma and degree holder Sub-Assistant Engineers (SAE) for supernumerary appointments as Assistant Engineers (AE).
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition by making observations that the due procedure of law was followed by the Respondents under Section of the 24(4)(a)(i) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
