Every Government has a right to levy taxes. But no Government has the right, in the process of extracting tax, to cause misery and harassment to the taxpayer and the gnawing feeling that he is made the victim of palpable injustice
Decision of this Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (supra) placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. R. Lingamallu Rajkumar reported in [2001] 247 ITR 801, wherein it has been held that amounts received on retirement by a parnter is not subject to capital gains tax.
Whether the Tribunal has power in terms of Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules to dismiss an appeal before it without considering the merits of the appeal and only on the ground for want of prosecution?
The challenge in this petition is to the Circular dated 6th March, 2013 issued by the 1st respondent. The said circular lays down the procedure of preparation of a panel of Auditors and Auditing firms in accordance with the third proviso to sub-section (1) (a) of Section 81 of the Maharashtra
– We were unaware that the law required anyone to give an explanation for having tea, whether in the morning, noon or night. One might take tea in a variety of ways, not all of them always elegant or delicate, some of them perhaps even noisy.
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a Transfer Pricing Order dated 31 st October, 2011, passed by respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing
The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association in the State of Maharashtra has filed this Writ Petition seeking certain directions relating to appointment of members of the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
Appellant could not point out any provision under which the plaintiff is required to seek prior permission for running medical dispensary with only outpatient treatment facilities without any indoor work in her residential flat, more particularly, when the whole flat is being used for residential purpose and medical dispensary is being run in an area less than 30 sq.mtr.
The assessment in the instant case was re-opened on the ground that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had reversed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 2005-06 whereby the Special Bench held that the commission of Rs.1 .20 crores to the three Directors was in lieu of dividend and the same was not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(ii).
Issue – Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the wrong claim made by the assessee is not filing of inaccurate particulars, ignoring the fact that the assessee has knowingly claimed the setting off of loss against other source
