In present facts of the case, the condonation of delay was allowed for 902 days by placing its reliance over the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was observed that Income-tax law is a complex subject and meeting its compliance requirements is dependent on services by experts of the subject matter. Accordingly the delay was condoned and the appeal was allowed on merits.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing Revenue Appeal have held that when the amounts received in cash against the sale of flats which have not been recorded in the books of account of the assessee at the time of search and seizure operation and subsequently recorded in the books as advance from customers is nothing but an eye wash to supplement the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash receipts. Therefore the addition made by the AO deserves to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that life tax is to be collected from the vehicle owner upon sale based on the net invoice price of the vehicle and not the ex-showroom price of the vehicle. The life tax can be levied only on the cost of the vehicle under the 6th schedule of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act
Unravel the Rahul Gupta vs CPIO case where the CIC upheld that public authorities are not obliged to provide opinions or advice under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Rajasthan High Court upheld order of Electricity Ombudsman, which allowed recovery of transformation losses and pro-rata transformer cost from large industrial consumers. The court reasoned that an order supported by factual findings and necessary documents cannot be considered arbitrary.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court have held that Section 27 (3) expressly states that an obligation of a limited liability partnership, whether arising in contract or otherwise, shall be solely the obligation of the limited liability partnership.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while government can deviate from the route of tenders or public auctions for the grant of contracts, the deviation must not be discriminatory or arbitrary. The deviation from the tender route has to be justified and such a justification must comply with the requirements of Article 14.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest as per section 2(g) of the Act 1993 and as per section 2(g), “debt” means any liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that deposit of earnest money as well as balance amount on order of the Trial court shows readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to execute the Contract.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that MSMED Act does not provide any priority over the debt dues of the secured creditor akin to Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Further, it was held that so far as recoveries under the SARFAESI Act with respect to the secured assets would prevail over the recoveries under the MSMED Act to recover the amount under the award / decree passed by the Facilitation Council.
