The insertion of sub-section (1A) in Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, the only change that has been brought about is that the District Magistrate/CMM has now the discretion to appoint even their subordinate officers as receivers. Pertinently, sub-section (1A) of Section 14 does not bar the appointment of advocates as receivers. The same position obtains vis-à-vis Rule 8(3) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which has been cited in the aforementioned judgment of the Bombay High Court.
In the given case, the Petitioner who is a regular income tax assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer issued under section 133(6) of the Act, called for certain information from the assessee.
SRC Aviation (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) it may be noted that as per Notification No. 49/2019 dated 09.10.2019 issued by CBIC, the date prescribed for filing of Form GST TRAN-1 under Rule 117 (1A) of the CGST Rules has been extended to 31.12.2019. This itself demonstrates that the […]
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) In the present case, respondent no.3 was satisfied while granting relaxation that the establishment may be eligible for granting exemption by the appropriate authority and thus the relaxation order was issued at that point in time in the year 1988. However, it […]
Pr. CIT Vs Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) In the present case, the Revenue is seeking to rely on three documents to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act against the Assessee. Two of them, viz., the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter […]
Global Impex Vs Manager, Celebi Import Shed And Anr. (Delhi High Court) (i) The custodian has a lien over the imported goods, consigned to its custody. This lien may be statutory, as provided under the IAA Act, all the Major Port Trusts Acts, or contractual. It may also be relatable to Sections 170 and 171 […]
Whether the payment of provident fund and employees state insurance (ESI) dues deposited by the Assessee within the grace period would qualify for deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Assessing Officer ought to have evaluated the claim made by the assessee for write-off of liability by Canara Bank in its favour amounting to Rs. 1,36,45,525/-, and should not have rejected the same merely on the ground of it being raised for the first time.
Election Commission Of India Vs Central Information Commission (Delhi High Court) An EVM which is sought for by this RTI application is not miniature/replica and hence cannot said to be a model. It cannot be termed to be information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. It is manifest that Section 3 of the […]
A. B. Pal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) as per Notification No. 49/2019 dated 09.10.20 19 issued by CBIC, the date prescribed for filing of Form GST TRAN-1 under Rule 117 (1A) of the CGST Rules has been extended to 3 1.12.2019. This itself demonstrates that the Respondents […]
