In absence of any specific averment, the prosecution in the present case doesn’t and cannot reply on section 22C(2) of the Act. Unless the company as a principal accused has committed the offence, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) would not be liable and cannot be prosecuted.
Held that a Will cannot be revoked by an agreement and can be revoked only as per the modes specified under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act.
Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Conclusion- Cash deposited in bank was transferred to insurance company by way of insurance premium in the name of respective insurer – Assessee acted as facilitator and not the owner of the cash deposited in bank account – Addition not possible under section 69A. Facts- The assessee deposited […]
As own fund of the assessee exceeds the amount of capital work in progress. A presumption can be drawn that the own fund is utilized in such capital work in progress. Therefore there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest expenses.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & GST (Madras High Court) Facts- Exemption claimed by the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner sought settlement of dispute under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. However, revenue argued that lubricant figures in 4th schedule of the Act and such goods are expressly […]
Cognizant Technology Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs Asst.CIT (Madras High Court) Facts- Impugned notice was issued under section 148 for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner questioned the legal validity of the initiation of the reopening proceedings. Conclusion- If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the particular issue has not been considered or […]
Kusum Healthcare Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (ITAT Delhi) Facts- M/s Kusum Healthcare has preferred an appeal challenging OIO demanding tax on the finding that remittances made to their branches and offices abroad is ‘consideration’ for ‘taxable service’ procured from outside the taxable territory. Conclusion- The Tribunal in the case […]
If the party who is seeking condonation of delay has not acted in malafide manner and reasons explained are factually correct then the Court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and lean in favour of such party.
To categorize a particular amount as reimbursement, it is sine-qua-non that the expenditure should be incurred for and on behalf of the other. It envisages two cumulative conditions, viz., first that undiluted benefit flowing from the incurring of the expenditure is passed on, as such, to the other and the second, that the amount incurred is recovered as it is from the other without any plus or minus to that.
The workmen working in the Dewas factory of the appellant were transferred to Chopanki, District Alwar. Being aggrieved the workmen made a reference of the same to the Labour Court claiming that the employer has transferred them without any justifiable reason and such transfer amounts to illegal change under section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
