The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 129 E of the Indian Customs Act, 1962, that makes pre- deposit mandatory for filing an appeal before the tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) concerned.
The present matter has brought forth the problems faced by citizens in free access to accurate and comprehensive sets of laws in India. The availability of accurate legal texts, at minimal cost, is fundamental to the rule of law and a basic responsibility of the Government. With the advent of the internet, it is imperative that the Government make all efforts possible to provide comprehensive access to legislations and subordinate legislations online. While efforts have been made in this arena, a lot remains to be done.
In a recent ruling, the division bench of the Bombay High Court held that the assessee cannot claim that the sale of attached property is time-barred under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule, where he has applied to Settlement Commission for extension of time for payment of demand as per Order of Settlement and his application is pending and writes to TRO for putting sale on hold based on such application.
Thus, it appears that only on the basis of the valuation report received from the said officer – Assistant Valuation Officer, the assessing authority sought to reopen the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 which is clearly not an information for reopening the assessment proceeding
The issue is one, namely, whether the assessee was entitled to claim benefit of section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 with respect to Government grant of Rs. 8.97 crores received during the assessment year in question.
The Bombay High Court has restrained Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF), which markets ice cream under brand name Amul, from broadcasting two television advertisements as they were disparaging towards plaintiff’s product, Kwality Walls.
A finding of fact made by the Settlement Commission is not open to judicial review unless it is established that, such finding of fact suffers from perversity or is vitiated due to bias or malice. None of the grounds known to law to upset a finding of fact returned by a Settlement Commission has been substantiated in the facts of the present case.
When its book profit was nil on the last date of the financial year then the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax and therefore, interest u/s 234B and section 234C of the Act will not be charged
The provision contained in section 138 of the N.I. Act makes it clear that it is not every return of a cheque unpaid which leads to prosecution of an offence under the said provision of law.
When postal authorities collected notice from revenue on 31-3-2015 (last date of expiry of six years from end of relevant assessment year) as per arrangement between revenue and postal department, though such notice was served to assessee later, such notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was not barred by limitation.
