It is no-doubt true that normally, Court would be loath to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or malafides or bias or irrationality is made out and Court must realize their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause.
There cannot be a service provider – service recipient relationship between a partner and partnership firm when a partner discharges his duties as a partner pursuant to deed of partnership. Hence no service tax is payable on the activities performed by the respondent in the capacity of partner to the firm.
HC Held that held there was a total lack of application of mind in order of Committee of Executives. There is also a manifest failure to consider explanation offered by borrower/guarantor.
It is not necessary that all contracts yield a profit; some result in a loss as well. This is not a factor to permit a party to avoid its contractual obligations.
HC held that Collector shall have no jurisdiction to determine compensation payable for acquisitions under Resettlement of Displaced Persons Act.
Customs authorities (DRI officials) have no power or jurisdiction to inspect or seize goods in respect of units situated in the SEZ area. The Court held that only the Officers empowered under Section 22 of the SEZ Act have the power to investigate any offence committed in the SEZ unit.
Section 278 (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Court to presume culpable mental state of the accused, unless, the accused shows that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in the prosecution.
The respondent’s case that it was entitled to forfeit the sum of ₹60,00,000/- paid by the petitioner rested solely on the ground that it was earnest money and therefore, it could be forfeited in terms of the Agreement.
Ram Gopal Sharma Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and has been filing regular income tax return. In the instant case, return of income tax was filed on 23.07.2017 for the assessment year 2017-18. The same came in scrutiny and high […]
Bhima Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) ‘ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD’ IN A TAXING STATUTE – SHOULD BE AN ERROR SELF-EVIDENT – HIGH COURT OF KERALA The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held in M/s. Bhima Enterprises Vs. State Tax Officer (Investigation Branch) & Anr (WP(C) No. 28526 of […]
