In the case of Advance Netways Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hon’ble Bombay High Court denied to interfere in the order of CESTAT who directed to deposit 50 % of total duty payable and 10 % out of penalty payable.
M/s.Peacock Apparels (P) Ltd vs. ITO (Madras High Court), Except to state that the EOU has not been approved by the Specific Authority, the first respondent has not assigned any other reason to reopen the assessment order.
JVS Export vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) As per dictum laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others, (2003) 259 ITR 19 that pursuant to the notice issued by the assessing officer, he is bound to consider the objections of the parties
Service conditions of the allocated employee to Chhattisgarh Upon reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh cannot be varied to his disadvantage without prior approval of Central Government. Order On Board 1. The petitioner is a duly appointed Sub Engineer working in the Water Resources Department appointed by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. […]
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. However, respondent-N.T.P.C. is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any of the opinion/observation made herein above.
Failure of petitioner to make payment of amount of gratuity within 30 days from date it becomes payable to employee, sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 is squarely attracted and payment of interest being statutory and mandatory in nature and thereby petitioner is liable to make payment of interest on the said amount
In case of DIT (E) Vs. M/s Jasubhai Foundation, BOmbay High Court upheld the decision of ITAT in which it was held that section 10 and section 11, though mentioned in same chapter, but conditions mentioned in both sections are mutually exclusive from each other.
CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (Bombay High Court) The three grounds which have been projected and emphasised pertain to treatment of total income as income from house property and allowing deduction under section 24 ignoring the fact that the income was received from the business asset (unsold flats) shown as closing stock.
Excellent question that emanates for consideration is nature of Rule making function exercised by the Registrar under Section 55(1) of the Act of 1960 whether it is legislative or administrative in nature and scope of interference by this Court in that function.
Outstanding issue which emanates for consideration is distinction between arrears of land revenue recoverable under Section 139 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’) and dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 155 (c) of the Code.
