Ruling in favour of a minority group of members opposing redevelopment of their housing society, the Bombay High Court, on Thursday, held that the developer could not seek their eviction without fulfilling the terms of the development agreement. Just
A member is not prohibited from gifting any amount to the society for the objects of the society. The principle of mutuality would not cease on account of these aspect. At the highest, authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules if any action is taken may direct an additional amount to be refunded. In our opinion, therefore, contribution by way of non occupancy charges, principle of mutuality would apply and consequently,
Decision of a company has to rest on views of majority; in case of disagreement by the minority, remedy lies u/s 397 & 398 and not in Civil Court. When a case falls within four corners of section 397 and/or section 398, ordinary civil court’s jurisdiction would stand barred to deal with such a dispute
The appellant/revenue has filed the above Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Chennai, dated 27.04.2007 in ITA.No.1862/Mds/2004. 2. When the appeal came up for admission on 09.03.2010, this Court admitted the same on the following substantial questions of law:
The challenge in this proceeding is to a notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik on 30 April, 2009 seeking to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The dispute in this case relates to assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. On 30 April 2001, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) constituted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the purchase and sale of shares by the petitioner was in the ordinary course of its business and the income which resulted from this
ITAT was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 63,46,000 paid by the assessee for acquiring technical know-how was allowable as revenue expenditure? The Tribunal was justified in its opinion that the payment made in question was allowable as revenue expenditure and not as capital expenditure allowable for deprecation under Section 32 of the Act .
Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that on 14th September, 2004, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted out on the respondent-assessee?s business premises. During the course of survey, the tax officials noticed some discrepancies in stock and cash in hand. During the said survey, respondent-assessee surrendered an amount of ` 99,50,000/- and offered the same for the purposes of taxation. The additional income offered included a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- on account of excess stock found during the course of survey and offered by one of the partners of the respondent-assessee as additional income.
The respondent can reverse the CENVAT credit availed on capital goods treating it as undesirable credit to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, and pay duty from PLA otherwise payable after exhausting CENVAT Credit balance thereby claiming refund of the same under Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001.
CIT Vs. Saranapal Singh (HUF) (Punjab & Haryana Court)- In the instant case, it was held that where the assessee had received a certain amount as short term loan and was duly repaid the said amount could not be treated as income of assessee under section 56(2)(v) of the Act.
