This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for quashment of the recovery and auction proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent UCO Bank (the Bank henceforth); for quashing the appellate order dated 9-11-2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Ballasts or boulders or chips being mineral as per Entry 117 of the taxable list are exigible to tax at the rate of 4% of taxable list. Moreover, the appeal has been purportedly filed before the Tribunal with proper perspective and there is no defect in raising any such plea before it.
This common judgment will dispose of a batch of writ petitions. They were heard together as they involve identical questions of fact and law as to the correct interpretation of Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act [hereafter the Act].
The assessee was a recipient of research and training grant and other income to the tune of Rs. 1.36 crores. The AO determined that the latter were commercial receipts and guided by proviso to Section 2(15) and held that the assessee could not avail the benefit under section 11(23) of the Act. The ITAT relied […]
Is a person, not being a member or a creditor or the company itself, entitled to challenge the striking off of the name of the company under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956? Does the petitioner have the locus standi to file and maintain the present writ petition?
The words mentioned in the SECTION 158bc notice are `within fifteen days’ whereas the provision mandates the time of not less than fifteen days. As notice which was issued by the authority asking the assessee to file the return within fifteen days is not in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and therefore it is invalid.
The assessee has been held entitled to adjustment of cash seized against its advance tax dues. It has further been held that the Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Act is not retrospective in nature.
Insofar as requirement of registration with department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, there is no provision in Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction.
In the light of the above factual position and the two Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is conceded equally by the Department that their stand, as contained in the impugned letter, is unsustainable in law. The matter is covered by the said two Judgments. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 821999. We direct that the declaration of the petitioners shall now be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law.
The petitioner (Contractor) impugns the order dated 30.06.20 14 passed by the Commissioner Valued Added Tax holding that the chemicals/Solvents used in the process of cleaning, amounted to sale of goods and the moment the chemicals were poured on the property of the Contractee, even though used for the purposes of cleaning, amounted to delivery of the same and thus the same was exigible to Tax.
