1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1983’ for short), the petitioners herein (contractors) have filed these revisions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order(s) dated 7-5-2013 passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter called as ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’ for short), whereby their applications filed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1983 for recalling the order dated 13-1-2012 and restoration of reference petitions filed, were dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction / non-maintainability by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983.
Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1983’ for short), the petitioners herein (contractors) have filed these revisions questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order(s) dated 7-5-2013 passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter called as ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’ for short), whereby their applications filed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1983 for recalling the order dated 13-1-2012 and restoration of reference petitions filed, were dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction / non-maintainability by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1983.
High Court held that once the approval is granted by the prescribed authority and such approval is valid, it would no longer be open for the Assessing Officer to verify the satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under rule 18DA in order to refuse deduction under subsection(8A) of section 80IB of the Act.
AO cannot look into source of source, i.e., of third party only, however assessee’s case was different as the party was closely connected with the assessee. Firm as a partner thereof assessee clearly failed to produce the sale deeds of the sale of agricultural land by partner therefore was justified in making addition under section 68.
The petitioner is a cricketer and is a former captain of the Indian Cricket Team. He participated in the IPL Cricket tournament held in India as a member of the Kolkata Knight Rider Team. At all material times he acted and still acts as brand ambassador for various products. He also acted as anchor in […]
Kaneria Granito Ltd Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) In this case, admittedly, all the three bank accounts were in the nature of either the cash credit account or term loan account. In other words, the accounts were opened to enable the assessee to borrow the money from the bank for the purpose of its business. […]
It has categorically been explained by the assessee that it is not practically possible to give detailed party wise breakup of fees receipts since the assessee received his fees either directly from the clients or from the instructing advocates or CAs, if they have collected the amounts from the clients.
Even after amendment of the Trust Deed the main object of the trust was to promote education. Letting out was incidental and not the principle activity of the assessee trust.Thus carrying out such incidental activity and the income derived from it is used for the educational institute and not for any particular person & thus newly inserted proviso to section 2 (15) will apply only to entities.
The Assessee filed application with AAR for for determination of the question regarding taxability of its profits arising from offshore sales. The AAR rejected the applications as notice Section 143(2)/ 142(1) were already issued prior to the filing of the application before the AAR, the transaction in respect of which the ruling of the AAR was sought was filed before the date of the application.
The Hon’ble Madras HC in the above cited case held that the one time upfront payment made by assessee lessee to lessor for the acquisition of leasehold rights over an immovable property for a long duration of time say 99 years could not be taken to constitute rental income at the hands of the lessor because the dominant intention of leasing is sale of rights in immovable property for a long period of 99 years.
