Authorities under the Act are obliged to dispose of proceedings before them as expeditiously as possible after the conclusion of the hearing. This alone would ensure that all the submissions made by a party are considered in the order passed and ensure that the litigant also has a satisfaction
Impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed in total disregard of the principles laid down in KEC International Ltd. Vs. B.R.Balakrishnan and others {(2001)251-ITR-158 (Bom)} wherein a Division Bench of this Court laid down the following parameters to be observed by the Authorities while considering the stay application :
The impugned communications dated 22 January 2014 and 23 January 2014 issued by Respondent no.3 Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax insisting that the Petitioner should pay the amounts adjudicated upon by order dated 27 December 2013 is contrary to the provisions
Contention of the Assessee :- The action of the petitioner revenue in not only attaching the petitioner’s bank account but also withdrawing the amount of Rs.159.84 crores on 18 November 2013 when the stay application was already fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 22 November 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) so also the learned Tribunal upon perusal of the agreement in question found that the possession as contemplated in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was in fact not handed over by the assessee to the developer.
The Bombay high court in the case of Niranjani Roshan Rao V/S. Roshan Mark Pinto, in Family Court Appeal No. 124 of 2013 has held that a Hindu married to a non-Hindu in accordance with Hindu rituals cannot seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
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
