This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a communication dated 18th March, 1998 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City III and the Circular dated 25th July, 1997 of the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT).
I find it difficult to accept much of this. Indeed I would question the assertion that the concept of an acting-based talent hunt is unique, novel, distinct or that it was first adopted by Zee. That needs much more material, and I can find it nowhere in these papers.
This Appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 23rd April, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008- 09.
HC held that The Central Government cannot direct the assessing officer to take a particular view of the matter as that would be a direct interference with his powers as an assessing officer. He has to exercise the powers in accordance with law.
In the light of various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, we hope that wisdom would prevail on the lawyers, so far as the present call to abstain from work is taken by the respondents. It is needless to say that everyone including the community of lawyers have to abide by the directions of the Apex Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution.
Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent, waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of manufacturing base station antennas, microwave antennas, R.F. cables, jumpers and connectors and trading in related products.
Plantiff says that there is urgency because the Defendants’ film Phillauri, alleged to be in violation of the Plaintiffs’ copyright in their 2013 Gujarati, Bhojpuri and Nepali film Mangal Phera, is slated for public theatrical release just a few day hence — this very Friday, 24th March 2017.
An employee can maintain a Petition for winding up of a Company under section 439 r/w sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 as a creditor based on the claim of the recovery of his unpaid salary and wages.
The above Court Receivers Report dated 28th December, 2016 (Report) is filed by the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, seeking directions on Whether the Registry should accept the matters wherein the Arbitral Tribunal appoints the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as a Receiver for execution of orders passed by it etc.
Apex Court in MAK Data P. Ltd., v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax 358 ITR 593, that voluntary disclosure itself does not release the assessee from penal consequences.
