Claiming a writ in the nature of quo warranto, Shri Santosh Sahu, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating inter alia that the appointment of respondent No. 3 Shri Jiten Kumar as Labour Commissioner is contrary to the statutory provisions, and for his consequent removal from the post of Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
It is clear that the AO did not apply his mind independently and went by the order of the CIT. It is a settled law that a quasi-judicial authority cannot afford to act on the direction and in the present case on the direction of a superior officer.
The allegations against CA Vivek Kapoor were that he was master-mind in a scam of providing accommodation entries to various concerns after charging commission ranging from 1% to 3%.
Bombay High Court held that it is not open for the tribunal to disregard the binding decision of jurisdictional high court. Once there is a binding decision of jurisdictional high Court, the same continues to be binding on all authorities within the State till such time as it stayed and / or set aside by the Apex Court or this very Court takes a different view on an identical factual matrix or larger bench of this Court takes a view different from one already taken.
The brilliant question of law that has cropped up for consideration in this petition is whether exclusion of married daughter of the deceased SECL servant for being considered for dependent employment under the terms of National Coal Wage Agreement -VI (henceforth ‘NCWA-VI”) read with National Coal Wage Agreement-IX (henceforth ‘NCWA-IX”) is just, fair and reasonable ?
Gujarat High Court held In the case of Tata Teleservices vs. Union of India that while amending section 201 by Finance Act, 2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the same shall be applicable w.e.f. 1/10/2014 and even considering the fact that proceedings for F.Y. 2007-08
On account of some unavoidable reasons of the death in the family of the counsel of the appellant, the concerned counsel was unable to represent the appellant on the relevant date. The fact that there was a death in the family of the counsel of the appellant is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Denso India Limited vs. CIT that there can be no dispute that the AO would normally accept the figures given in TP report, if they do not call for his interference. However, his job also extends to critically evaluating materials and in cases which do require scrutiny, go ahead and do so.
The Bombay High Court held that the monthly alimony amounted to taxable income in the hands of the assessee. However, the lump sum alimony was in the nature of capital receipt.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Assessee’s objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice.
