CIT Vs State Bank of Bikaner (Rajasthan High Court) On perusal of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43(B)(b) and analyzing the judgements rendered, in our view as well, it is clear that the legislature brought in the statute Section 43(B)(b) to curb the of such tax payers who did not discharge their statutory liability of payment of dues, as […]
Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) In the present case, admittedly, though the employer did not deposit the contribution, within the stipulated time, as contemplated by paragraph-3O of the PF Scheme or before the due date under the provisions of the PF scheme/Act, he deposited the contribution to the PF/ESI fund before […]
CIT, Udaipur Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited (Rajasthan High Court) While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had deposited payment of Rs.14,60,412/- in the PF fund and Rs.973/- in the ESI fund with delay that is the said payments […]
CIT Vs Dimpal Yadav (Allahabad High Court) In the instant case, we find that the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the assessee had established a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provision of Section 269SS of the Act. The Tribunal further found that the loan given by the Samajwadi Party was […]
CIT Vs Panchsheel Owners Associations (Gujarat High Court) While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee, an AOP, borrowed loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- from Smt. Shantaben A. Patel, main promoter of the AOP, in cash for expeditious acquisition of land, in violation of section 269SS of the I.T. Act. Therefore, penalty […]
Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara General Merchants and Commission Agents Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is true that Rule 26(1) specifies that all applications including the appeals which are required to be submitted under the provisions of these Rules shall be so submitted electronically with a digital signature certificate or through e-signature […]
In present facts of the case, the Honble Madras High Court while disposing of the writ petition observed that the petitioner have alternative remedy to file appeal and have also directed to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- for saving the premises from getting sealed by authorities.
Delhi High Court held that based on principle of initial interest confusion trademark infringement proved for using RAJNIPAAN, similar to take to well-known trademark RANJIGANDHA, even though no actual sale is finally created as a result of the confusion.
In present facts of the case, the Honble Delhi High Court held that the pre-show cause notice consultation is mandatory under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962
Held that there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, providing for a review of an order passed under Section 11 of the Act.
