he Division Bench held that a legal practitioner having an office cannot be said to be carrying on commercial activity and would not fall within the definition of the expression commercial establishment.
The tendency not to accept any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals being filed in this Court. That causes huge loss to the public exchequer and results in wastage of precious judicial time of this Court.
Bombay high court in scheme of amalgamation between Wadala Commodities Limited with Godrej Industries Limited has passed a judgment on postal ballot and e-voting. Court has observed that postal ballot and e-voting is an additional facility and cannot have the effect of dispensing the general meeting at all.
Bombay High Court in scheme of amalgamation between Wadala Commodities Limited with Godrej Industries Limited has stated that gazetted copy of many MCA rules are not available, hence in the opinion of the court they are not binding so far or at least from 1st April 2014.
Affidavit of service dated 10 April 2014 is filed indicating that Respondent nos.1 and 2 have received the notice on 31 March 2014 and 8 April 2014 respectively. Though served, none appears for Respondent nos.1 and 2.
The assessee contended that the expenditure under the said claims are only for promotion of sales and hence had no relation to payment of any commission on sales. The assessee contended that therefore tax at source is not required to be deducted as the said expenditure did not fell within the ambit of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
Deposits or advances given to the parties which was written-off latter in the scheme of amalgamation, were neither a capital assets nor there was any transfer, thus no capital loss is allowed to be carried forward to the subsequent year. Thus held that irrecoverable advances written-off are not a transfer and the loss cannot be claimed as capital loss.
Bombay HC dismisses writ filed by Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association and upholds validity of service tax levy on air-conditioned restaurants serving liquor u/s 65(105)(zzzzv) of Finance Act.
Hon’ble Bombay HC has recently held in the case of Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Vs. CIT that In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally.
The applicant had collected Rs.2.59 Cores of Service Tax during the period 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 but had not deposited the said amount except Rs.15 Lakhs. The applicant had in fact never filed any service tax returns and as such knowingly utilized the Government monies for his personal use.
