The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was also issued at Cuttack. The return of income for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also filed at Cuttack. The final assessment order dated 29th December 2017 for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also passed at Cuttack. We are of the view that we should not entertain this writ application and relegate the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orrissa at Cuttack.
Jaganadhan Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Facts- The Government of Kerala amended the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 by introducing Section 27A, whereby applications for user of unnotified land for other purposes was permitted. A fee was prescribed for granting permission for such user. On 25.7.2021, the Government issued a […]
The appellant falls into the criteria of an eligible passenger. He is thus allowed to import gold jewellery upto 10 kilograms by paying appropriate customs duty. The currencies seized from him are sufficient to pay the customs duty for the gold carried by him.
Russell Reynolds Associates Inc. Vs DCIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The Appellant, incorporated under the laws of the United States of America, filed its Income-tax return for relevant assessment showing income being royalty income received from Russell Reynolds Associates India Private Limited in terms of ‘Licensing Agreement’ for use of Intellectual Property Rights (‘IPRs’) […]
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research Vs Shri. D. Ganesan (Madras High Court) Facts- The short question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent who has admittedly submitted a fake/ false certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) Community, though the 1st respondent admittedly belonged to Back ward Class (BC) and thereby enjoying […]
The entire case of the department is based on the un-corroborated entries found in the computer server which were retrieved by using the forensic tools. These alleged documents collected by the department from the computers of M/s.RNS Infrastructure Ltd., cannot be described as evidence so as to fasten the tax liability on the present assessee.
There is absolutely no dispute that the foreign reinsurers does not have any place of business in India / permanent establishment in India / branch established in India / Liaison office in India. Hence, any payment made by the assessee company to such foreign insurers would not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the foreign reinsurers in India in terms of Section 195(1) of the Act.
The impugned award rests on interpretation of certain clauses of the Agreements executed between the parties. As noted above, the question of construction of a contract falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
It is a settled position that the High Court do not ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or if the statute itself provides for a mechanism for redressal of the grievance.
Malvika Rajnikant Mehta Vs JESS Construction (Bombay High Court) Facts- The applicants executed a deed of conveyance in favour of the respondent. The Conveyance Deed provided for a mechanism for resolution of dispute between the parties through arbitration to be presided over by Mr. Kirti K. Shah, an Architect, as the sole Arbitrator. Asserting that […]
