We are inclined to follow the view taken by the Bombay High Court, which in any case, was also the view taken by this Court in Smt. Anita Chaudhary (supra). Since this appeal has been filed within 90 days which is prescribed period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Act of 1955, the same is held to be within limitation.
Revenue has not made out any bar for the transitioning of EC, SHEC and KKC into the GST regime and the petitioner satisfies all conditions both under sub-section (1) and (8) of section 140. The embargo placed by Rule 3(7)(b) is long gone with the introduction of GST. Certainly the powers-that-be are conscious of these factors in drafting the new legislation and the specific provision in question i.e., Section 140.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court declined to entertain pleas filed by the kin of former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah challenging their alleged house arrest by the State. High Court held that In writ proceedings, a fact is to be supported and proved by authentic documentary evidence. Press cuttings cannot be relied upon as authentic documentary evidence.
M/S. GCDA Employees Vs COIT (Kerala High Court) It is well settled that pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. Pension is in the nature of deferred payment earned for rendering long and satisfactory service with the employer. It is […]
The issue in these writ petitions is whether multi-function devices (MFDs) are covered under the term ‘printers’. This dispute has arisen in view of the document Annexure P-12 by a clarification which was issued by way of Circular No.1 of 2019 dated 2.5.2019 as per which it was ‘clarified’ that multi-function devices which are basically printers with additional features like photocopy, scan, fax etc. are covered within the ambit of ‘printers’.
GST dept to permit the Assessee to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019. The Respondents are at liberty to verify genuineness of claim of Petitioners but nobody shall be denied to carry forward legitimate claim of CENVAT/ITC on the ground of non-filing of TRAN-I by 27.12.2017.
On analysing section 164(2) it was concluded that the same operates prospectively and a director would not demit office in terms of Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 on account of a disqualification incurred under Section 164(2) for conduct prior to the amendments to the Act introduced from May 7, 2018. Moreover, Central government had no power to cancel or deactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) on account of a director suffering a disqualification under Section 164(2).
Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) We notice that during the original assessment as well as the remand proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to produce the share investors which the assessee failed to do. The Assessing Officer thereupon issued the summons to the share purchasers calling upon them to […]
This Court has taken suo motu cognizance of incident of police firing as well as lathicharge by the police upon Advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, New Delhi.
If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from `any order’ under the Act. This is another indication that the Commissioner of Income Tax has very wide powers to correct any order passed by an officer subordinate to him.
