Summoning of the MD should be undertaken only as a last resort in cases where assesses are not cooperating or the investigations are to be completed expeditiously. The same is not justified in the present case.
Held that in case of appointment of a sole arbitrator, the law is very clear that it is the Court that is to decide the sole arbitrator. The persons that have been nominated by the respondent cannot be accepted.
The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148A of the Income Act, 1961 on 20.03.2022 and that the Petitioner has also replied to the same on 25.03.2022, which has also been acknowledged. However, the impugned order has wrongly recorded that the Petitioner has not responded.
Parveen Mehta Vs Vishal Joshi (Punjab & Haryana High Court) HC held that undisputed signatures of the respondent on the cheque in itself is not sufficient for conviction under Section 138 of the Act. One of the ingredient for succeeding under Section 138 of the Act is that the cheque was issued for discharge of […]
Harsh Kaushal Corporation Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) In the present case, it is evident from the reasons recorded for reopening that the petitioner had truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. In fact, in the reasons for reopening, there is not even a whisper as to what was […]
HT Media Limited & Anr. Vs www.Hindustantimes.Tech & Anr. (Delhi High Court) HC directs blocking of website www.Hindustantimes.Tech is restrained from using the domain name hindustantimes.tech or any other mark, name or domain name, which consists of the word ‘Hindustan Times’ or is deceptively similar to the mark of the HT Media Limited. www.Hindustantimes.Tech is also […]
Maya Rathi Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) We find that the validity of first proviso to Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been assailed on the ground that the explanation ‘income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment’, has been restricted in its meaning under the explanation-1 to that provisions. Learned counsel for the […]
Yamuna Cables Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Desai Enterprise (Gujarat High Court) Learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar appeared for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr. B. S. Patel with learned advocate Mr. Umang Oza appeared for the respondents. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court […]
Neha Mathur Vs Dr. Arvind Kishore (Rajasthan High Court) Court holds that merely the fact that the wife is earning would not dis-entitle her from the maintenance. The husband himself has taken the divorce on 29.04.2015, fact not in dispute, and therefore, the charge of desertion cannot become a ground so as to enable the […]
Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to issue clear directions to all the concerned authorities in the State of Uattar Pradesh to comply strictly the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and handover physical possession of the secured […]
