Provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. The penalty under Sections 18, 38, 59, 60, 61, 63 and 64 is to be levied on account of contravention of provisions of RERA, prospectively and not retrospectively. These provisions, therefore, cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20(1) and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
It was held that petition shall not be entertained with the observation that since the Government machinery was geared up, the petitioner could not urge or seek directions to postpone the decision of implementation from 01.07.2017.
Once the assessee is a beneficiary of the amount received as a consequence of the transfer executed by her husband, of which she had no knowledge, she offered that during the course of the assessment proceedings, that does not mean that her act can be brought within the penalty provision.
Where AO passed order of reassessment under section 147, even when Revenue processed return of assessee under section 143(1)(i) by intimation, the impugned assessment order deserved to be quashed, as the AO could not proceed with extraordinary power under section 147, when normal procedure of assessment of income under section 143(3) was available.
The petitioner had questioned and challenged the validity of office order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Secretary, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as Maha RERA for short). In the impugned order the Maha RERA observed that since the term ‘Co promoter’ is not defined in the Act,Rules or Regulations, it […]
Bombay High Court held in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Service that While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself
It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tribunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft discounting, is accepted by the Tribunal. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not arise.
On reading the provisions of section 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” as detailed under section 2(43), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the phraseology tax in arrears as envisaged in section 221 of the Act would not take within its realm the interest component.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court, on Monday, held that insurance charges and carrying charges do not form part of the sale price under section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. A bench comprising Justices R.K Deshpande and Manish Pitale was hearing a departmental appeal against the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal wherein the Tribunal held that insurance charges and carrying charges do not form part of the sale price under section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court) Provisions of section 271(1)(c) can only be invoked upon satisfaction of the ingredients as laid down in the said section. In the present case, it appears that the assessee had disclosed in its return the loss of Rs. 80.64 Crores sustained by him and further in the return, note was also given that it reserves its right to carry forward the loss.
