HC held that the Managing Director of a company should not be directly summoned by authorities under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 . Further held that, authorized representatives of a company are to be summoned and MD can only be summoned, if the former is not cooperating or if investigation is to be completed expeditiously.
It is clear that, the transactions in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in Clause (ac) of Section 2 of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 carried in a recognized stock exchange are excluded from the definition of ‘speculation transaction’ described under Section 43 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
This Court finds that the claim/dues of the creditors are required to be settled by the OL in the manner and priority, as prescribed under the Act of 1956. The State dues, in no way, can have preference over the dues/claims of the workmen and other secured creditors.
Vellaian Selvaraj Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst. CIT/ITO (Madras High Court) Considering the fact that the impugned Assessment Orders have been passed without any discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed by remitting the case back to the National Faceless Assessment Centre to pass a fresh order within a period of sixty days based on the reply filed by […]
Delhi HC allows petition challenging recovery notices. Petitioner seeks leniency citing financial constraints and health issues.
State of Rajasthan Through Chief Engineer Vs Godhara Construction Company (Rajasthan High Court) It is not in dispute that the arbitral award was passed on 29.07.2000 and the objections were filed by the appellant-State of Rajasthan under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 on 21.11.2000. It is an admitted position of law that the […]
Case of the prosecution is that the applicant is a Chartered Accountant and Company Secretary engaged in the profession of teaching students who aspire to become Chartered Accountant. The complainant is the Managing Director of a Coaching Institute for CA and CS titled as J.K. Shah Education Private Limited.
Refund was allowable to assessee alongwith the interest on delayed refund as the officer arbitrarily and illegally withheld the amount of refund despite the order of the first appellate authority dated 30.06.2018 for refund.
Chandrasekaran Ragupati Vs CBDT (Madras High Court) It is the admitted case on the part of the Revenue that, on the last date i.e., on 11.06.2021, which was given to the petitioner to reply ie., upto which the web portal of the respondent was not functioning because of technical glitches. This has been admitted by […]
Section 56 of the U.P. VAT Act would reveal that the section has wide power, but seeking of permission by the assessing authority for making reassessment of the dealer is not conferred under the said provision.
