Guwahati High Court held that any member of a Scheduled Tribe as defined in Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, residing in any of the areas prescribed u/s. 10(26), is exempted from payment of income tax. However, residing in any area specified cannot be given a narrow and restricted meaning.
Sharda Lunkar Vs Union of India (Guwahati High Court) Guwahati High Court held that order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act is an appealable order and accordingly the alternative remedy available by approaching the appellate authority should be availed. Facts- Petitioner has filed the writ petition against the notice issued under section […]
Rockland Media And Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) The petitioner is challenging the non-grant of transitional credit under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the writ petition can be disposed of […]
Commissioner- Shri Raju Shakthivel demanded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ i.e.@ 10% of the demand of Service Tax, through conduits for a favorable order in the said appeal.
Section 60(5) makes it discernible that it is a provision with a non-obstante clause that ‘notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law’ gives a jurisdiction to the NCLT to entertain or dispose of any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person;
It is stated that one Mahabir Jain Shyamsukha was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 3,83,000/ on behalf of accused Raju Sakthivel. It is also stated that investigation is still going on and one of the accused is absconding, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
Gauhati High Court held that rejected the pre-arrest bail as the informant referred to mobile call screenshots which project that the petitioner repeatedly called him to mount pressure to compromise the matter.
Subhra Jyoti Bharali Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Gauhati High Court) Section 173 of the CrPC does not prescribe piecemeal investigation and filing of incomplete charge sheet before the court. Section 173(8) CrPC prescribes that even after filing of charge sheet further investigation can be done. In that case, if the investigating officer gathers additional evidence, […]
While the seized betel nuts are not required for the purpose of investigation, as is apparent from the report of the I.O., the grounds, so assigned for rejection of zimma petition, filed by the petitioner, by the learned court below, seems to be not in conformity with the law, so laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2002.
Sunita Agarwal Vs Securities And Exchange Board of India (Gauhati High Court) Rule 4(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for holding enquiry and imposing penalties) Rules, 1995 i.e. PR-1995 inter-alia provides that if after considering the cause shown pursuant to the notice under Sub-Rule 1, the adjudicating officer is of the opinion […]
