Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. that we find no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal has endorsed the views of the CIT Appeals whilst coming to such conclusions.
it was held that where complete disclosure of income had been made in the return of income and head of the income undergoes a change at the hands of the Assessing Officer would not by itself justify the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1) (c).
Infosys & Wipro are no doubt large and distinct companies where the area of development of subject services is different and as such the profit earned there from cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the assessee.
The trial Magistrate / Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is the Special Court under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 who has jurisdiction under the Act of 1989.
Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights.
The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner provides labour in the construction of buildings to various builders under a works contract. It is alleged that under the agreement the petitioner is liable to pay service tax w.e.f. 01.07.2012.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs. Shri Manu Gupta that post Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which amended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, all rights which were available to a Hindu male are now also available to a Hindu female, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.
HC held that Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) was in the nature of an Amnesty Scheme and, therefore, its provisions have to be strictly interpreted. Infact, the scheme was a settlement between the assessee and the department and from the terms of the settlement neither party can be permitted to retract.
Petitioners would assail the common order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through its Registrar General transferring ST No. 148/99 (State v. Smt. Kiran Singh and Others) and ST No. 71/95 (sic 71/99) (State v. T.P. Ratre) along with one civil suit and two civil appeals from the Court of Shri L.R. Thakur, Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (for short “the ASJ”) to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur (for short “the SJ”) for re-hearing the cases in accordance with law.
Excellent question that emanates for consideration is, where recommendations made by Justice Shetty Commission and statutory Recruitment Rules namely the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006, are at variance; which has to be followed in making selection and appointment for the post of District Judge (Entry Level).
