CIT Vs Gokula Education Foundation (Karnataka High Court) Facts- Assessee claim an amount of INR 93,46,716 under section 11(2) by filing Form No. 10. In Form No. 10, assessee mentioned the object as ‘towards the object of the Trust’. Assessee filed revised Form No. 10 briefly specifying the object which was accepted by the Commissioner […]
The principle that there should not be an apprehension on the part of the party to the case that justice will not be done is not to be applied in extract terms nor the principle that once one of the accused in the case has lodged a complaint against the presiding officer, the case should necessarily be transferred.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2016 whereby the application filed u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge the petitioner was rejected. Consequently the charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 307, 323 read with section 506 Part-II of IPC. The impugned order is filed as Annexure P-1 and the charges so framed is filed as Annexure P-2.
This election petition is concerned with the election held in respect of Legislative Assembly Area No. 83 of Kondagaon constituency wherein the voting took place on 11.11.2013 and the result of the election was declared on 08.12.2013 and the respondent Mohanlal Markam was declared as returned candidate. The following is the position of votes secured by the candidates :
Appendix I in Income Tax Rules, 1962 in respect of rates at which depreciation is admissible provides depreciation on computers including computer software @ 60%. Recently, in Dinamalar vs. The ITO [T.C.A.No.624 of 2016, Decided on 02.09.2016], the assessee in respect of the claim of depreciation on computers and computer peripherals, claimed depreciation on the items, viz.
Impugning legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 26-5-2005 passed by the Board of Revenue by which the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order of the Commissioner setting aside the sale made by the original holders in favour of the petitioners and vesting the land in favour of the Government finding that the sale made by the original holders of the land in favour of the petitioners is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 165(7)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’), the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
Since no incriminating material was unearthed by AO during the course of search operation under section 132, therefore, no addition could be made during the relevant assessment year under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter which was examined earlier during original assessment.
Bombay High Court held that Supply of Reasons Recorded for Making Reassessment is Necessary Otherwise the Income Escaping Assessment shall be Void. The Assessing Officer(AO) is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
Delhi HC held that a Chartered Accountant while doing concurrent audit is expected to check the transactions falling within the scope of audit in depth. Thus, non-checking of the same would be gross negligence on his part while performing professional duties.Accordingly, he is liable to face the charge of professional misconduct under clause 7 of the First Schedule of the CA Act, 1949.
The short question that emanates for consideration in these revisions is whether the Claims Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 has power and jurisdiction to review its award on merits.
