The court held that interest cannot be claimed where delay in receiving rent was caused by the landlord’s own inaction. Procedural compliance for withdrawal was found essential.
The issue concerned overlap of deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80HHC. The Court held that 80HHC profits cannot be reduced by 80-IA deduction, ensuring independent computation.
A criminal revisional application filed by a firm and its directors for non-payment of tax invoice dues was dismissed as a prima facie case had been made out against assessee, observing that their conduct of denying the transaction after receiving goods indicated a dishonest intention from the inception.
The case examined whether revision under Section 263 was validly invoked. The High Court held that reliance on the Assessing Officer’s reference without independent application of mind invalidated the revision.
The court held that electricity tariff for determining market value must include all components, including duty. It ruled that excluding such elements artificially reduces eligible deduction.
The ruling held that amended provisions cannot be used to reopen cases already settled by final judgments. It emphasizes that retrospective fiscal laws must respect judicial finality and constitutional safeguards.
Calcutta High Court held that municipal tax does not constitute rent hence default thereon cannot be reason for eviction. Further, decree of eviction set aside since reasonable requirement for the purpose of building or rebuilding not proved.
The case examined prolonged pendency of an income tax appeal. The court directed the assessee to file a reply within two weeks and allowed disposal even without it if non-compliance continues.
The constitutional validity of Section 232B and the proviso to Section 180(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was upheld while setting aside specific retrospective tax notices issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation(KMC) to a property owner as they neither suffer from manifest arbitrariness nor violate Articles 14, 19 or 300A.
Paragraph 27AA of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme could not be automatically imposed on establishments exempted under Section 17 of the EPF Act unless the Appropriate Government issued a specific official notification modifying the conditions of such exemption.
