It was held that The State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh is entitled for income tax exemption under Section 10(23A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1-11-2000 (from the date of constitution of the Council).
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the notice dated 28.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and also the order dated 25.09.2017 whereby the objections preferred by the petitioner questioning the issuance of notice dated 28.03.2017 was rejected.
Section 12A of the Income Tax Act nowhere empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to assess the objects vis-a-vis the donation received by the Charitable Trust in the first year of its establishment. At the stage of Section 12A the Commissioner is not to examine the application of income.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the notice dated 28.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and also the order dated 25.09.2017 whereby the objections preferred by the petitioner questioning the issuance of notice dated 28.03.2017 was rejected.
In absence of law prohibiting transfer, no restriction to transfer the land can be directed by respondent No.2 as right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is not only constitutional or legal right, but it is also human right and a person can be deprived of that right only by authority of law.
Thus, it appears that only on the basis of the valuation report received from the said officer – Assistant Valuation Officer, the assessing authority sought to reopen the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 which is clearly not an information for reopening the assessment proceeding
Court is of the considered opinion that there is no willful suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of the petitioner and it was bona fide on the part of the petitioner, it was not deliberate and in absence of finding relating to mensrea recorded by the Settlement Commission, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 deserves to be quashed.
The Adjudicating Officer under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act of 2006) is required to make an enquiry before imposing penalty over the person charged for violation of Section 26(2) of the FSS Act of 2006.
.The basic finding of the Board of Revenue that educational qualification is required for the post of Kotwar is unsupportable by the Rules and therefore the consequent finding recorded that the petitioner has referred incorrect educational qualification (marks sheet) to support his appointment, is also liable to quashed being perverse to the record.
If the facts of the instant case are examined, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the award was passed by the Facilitation Council on 12-3-2014, the respondent herein filed application for execution of award on 21-8-2014 and thereafter on 19-2- 2015, application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was filed […]
