Where assessee was earning booking charges for facilitating transport of goods and was merely a conduit in passing the freight to the truck owners, who were actually plying trucks, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified because freight payment was not even claimed by assessee as an expense in its profit and loss account.
Petitioner herein seeks to challenge the transfer of First Information Report (hereinafter referred as “F.I.R.”) No. 0/2015 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) dated 28/06/2015 for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”) by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) by its memo. order dated 09/07/2015.
Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein calls in question the order Annexure P-1 dated 2-12-2014 whereby and whereunder, respondent No. 4 – Hon’ble Chancellor of Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (for short ‘the HNLU’) in exercise of his power conferred under Section 8(2) of the Hidayatullah National University of Law, Chhattisgarh, Act, 2003 read with Statute 19 of the Statutes contained in the Schedule to the said Act and in view of the amendment to the Statute of the University published on 25-11-2014, extended the tenure of respondent No. 5 – Prof. (Dr.) Sukh Pal Singh as Vice Chancellor of the University for a further period of five years or until he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier.
In the instant case, it is seen, admittedly that the nonresident agents were only procuring orders abroad and following up payments with buyers. No other services are rendered other than the above. Sourcing orders abroad, for which payments have been made directly to the non-residents abroad, does not involve any technical knowledge or assistance in technical operations or other support in respect of any other technical matters.
Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula prescribed in the agreement itself makes it clear that the deferred consideration to be received by the assessee in the four years would be dependent upon the profits made by M/s. Unisol in each of the years.
The Hon’ble Madras High court in the above cited case held that in deciding the application for condonation of delay in filling return of income the approach of the CBDT should be justice oriented so as to advance the cause of justice.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of ADIT vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma that clause 244A (1) (b) is residual in nature which prescribes interest on refund from the date of payment of tax in cases which are not covered by Section 244A (1) (a). Necessarily, it will cover interest on refund of excess self-assessment tax paid by the assessee.
The petitioner would assail the legality and validity of the order passed by the SP, Rajnandgaon on 11.3.2003 dismissing him from service; the appellate order dated 9.6.2003 passed by the IG, Police, Raipur Range and the order dismissing his mercy petition by the DGP, PHQ, Raipur in October, 2003 whereby his appeal and mercy petition were dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source in respect of payment made towards demurrage charges in cases where section 172 of the IT Act applies. The Revenue did not dispute in the present case that section 172 applied.
High Court held that as the issue of service of notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) are concerned, it is an admitted position that the said notices were never served on the Petitioner. The Revenue seeks to justify service of these notices on the Petitioner by contending that they have served the said notices on the last known address of the Petitioner which was the address of Ingram Micro India [earlier known as Tech Pacific India], the downstream company of the Petitioner.
