Whether the obligation to register a transfer of shares within a particular period of time was mandatory or directory? Whether the company can cancel or reject the transfer where stamps on transfer form were not defaced or canceled?
Amounts were collected as per the directions given by the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, it goes to the molasses storage fund over which the assessed has no control and domain. Inasmuch as the assessed cannot utilise the same for its own business purpose, we have also here to hold that there is diversion by overriding title at the source itself
As per the provisions of section 210(5), if an assessee, who receives an order under sub-section (3) or (4) of section 210, feels that his current income would be less than the amount on which advance tax has been demanded, vide such order, he can send an intimation in Form No. 28A to the Assessing Officer and pay advance tax as per his own estimate.
In spite of the enunciation of law in ACC, Entry 25 has not stood revived or restored into the Sixth Schedule of the Act. Therefore the Authorities under the Act cannot levy tax under the Act in regard to transfer of property in goods involved in processing photo negatives and supplying of photo prints and photographs, as if Entry 25 has stood restored in the Sixth Schedule to the Act.
The only dispute in the present appeals is as to whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)( i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income from the investment of rupees two crores in the purchase of 13.5 per cent. PSEB Bonds, 2003 First Series on September 20, 1993.
Argument of the learned counsel on behalf of the Food Corporation of India that since the amount of Rs. 10,31,344 has admittedly been paid on account of interest, it retains its character as interest and, therefore, the Food Corporation of India must be allowed to deduct interest thereon at the rate in force, is not tenable
Even if the ground about contravention of the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act is validly taken by the respondent, the same would have a bearing only at the point of time of the assessment of the petitioner-trust and would not be a material consideration in so far as granting of approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act is concerned.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT vs. Shri. C. Najeeb regarding penalty on income determined under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. Discover key questions of law, such as whether the Tribunal’s decision to levy income tax on 15% of total receipts is correct. Dive into the intricacies of assessment and penalty proceedings, including insights on undisclosed income, civil liability, and the interpretation of Section 158BFA. Uncover the court’s findings, providing clarity on the computation of undisclosed income and the imposition of penalties in this significant tax case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. Trade-tax Act e.g., in the case of M/s. D. B. Timber Merchant, Ballia v. Commissioner of Sales-tax and another, 1992 UPTC 18, M/s. M. S. Freight Carriers and another v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Ghaziabad, 1992 UPTC 273, M/s. Freight Carriers of India, Calcutta v. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad and others, 1992 UPTC 604, etc.
The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the consideration of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, from the Tribunal’s order dt. 18th August 1981, and 20th August 1983, the later being question on the ground which was raised but through oversight not decided in the earlier order by the Tribunal.
