Where in case of reassessment proceedings stay was granted by court and thereafter stay was vacated, the reassessment order was to be passed within 60 days from the date of vacation of stay, AO was not justified in saying that the period of 60 days should be counted from the date of receipt of order in office since it was not aware of the order.
Central Secretariat Club Vs. Geetam Singh (Delhi High Court) Non-payment of minimum wages, to a workman is, therefore, unconscionable and unpardonable in law. It strikes at the very root of our constitutional framework, and belies the aspirations set out in the preamble thereto. The preamble to the Constitution is the Constitution. It is the most […]
Erada Gopi Chand Vs. Union Of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court) The primary ground of challenge raised in this writ petition is to the effect that once having accorded a certification to a film under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Central Board of Film Certification, constituted by the Central Government under […]
While admitting an appeal by the Revenue against the ITAT Delhi’s order granting relief to Patanjali, the Delhi High Court recently ruled that propagation of yoga, Vedic philosophy, practice of yoga, education with respect to yoga are to be considered as medical relief for the purpose of granting exemption under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit the factual foundation has to be laid by the assessee. He has to own all cash credit entries in the books of account and only thereafter can the question of peak credit be raised
That judgment referred to the order of the DRP which had held that both the Assessees were not eligible Assessee under Section 144C (15) of the Act and that order of the DRP was binding on the AO. It was further held by this Court that the AO could not have disregarded the finding directions of the DRP and passed the final assessment order.
Failure to issue notice on any particular issue does not vitiate the exercise of power under Section 263 as long as the assessee is heard and given opportunity
The Judicial Functioning Of The Supreme Court Of India Is Separate/ Independent From Its Administrative Functioning. The Dissemination Of Information Under The SCR Is A Part Of Judicial Function, Exercise Of Which Cannot Be Taken Away By Any Statute. The SCR Would Be Applicable With Regard To The Judicial Functioning Of The Supreme Court; Whereas For The Administrative Functioning Of The Supreme Court, The RTI Act Would Be Applicable.
Lack of opportunity at the revisional stage under Section 263 does not vitiate the entire order, or the proceedings; rather it is a curable defect. Court is of the opinion that the ruling in Commissioner of Income tax v Amitabh Bacchan 2016 SCC Online SC 484 is decisive; it upholds the power of the Commissioner to consider all aspects which were the subject matter of the AO’s order, if in his opinion, they are erroneous, despite the assessee’s appeal on that or some other aspect.
The petitioner – a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – has filed the present petition impugning communications dated 01.08.2014 and 07.12.2015 (hereafter referred to as the impugned communications)
