High Court held that Considering the Office Memorandum F. No. 404/72/93- ITCC dated 29thFebruary 2016 as a whole, there is no such requirement of pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand either at the time of submitting stay application or before the stay application of the assessee is considered on merits.
When the language of Section 115WA and 115WB is clear and unambiguous and even the intention of the legislature while enacting sections 115WA and 115WB(2) is very clear i.e. with respect to the deemed fringe benefits, neither there is any scope for either literal and/ or purposive interpretation nor there is any occasion to consider the intention and for that purpose the speech of Honourable Prime Minister in the Parliament.
As the applicant is not a signatory to the cheque, no liability can be fastened upon him for the dishonour of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner as such challenges the levy of General Property Tax on IBS / Booster installed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also by way of amendment prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to declare Section 141B of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
Hc held that opinion that such a huge tax evasion cannot be so lightly permitted on account of any hyper-technicality. The concept of lift or piercing of corporate veil, as sometimes referred to as cracking the corporate shell, is applied by the Courts sparingly
NEBULA Watch, which is predominantly a jewellery, is made of gold, precious metals and /or precious stones /diamonds and is made of 18 Karat gold. Under the circumstances, the same can be said to be an Article or Jewellery falling within Entry No.13(ii) of Schedule II of the Act.
It is held that the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment under Section 153A of the Act for the block period may make addition considering the incriminating material found for the year under consideration only which was collected during the search.
It appears to the authority that there is a systematic design which rightly necessitated the authority to lift the corporate veil. It is also found by the authority that at the relevant point of time, the company was of one man show and substantially managed and controlled by petitioner and that conclusion is arrived at on the basis of materials on record which are indicated specifically that substantial cash flow and substantial increase in capital is only after induction of petitioner as a director and certificate of commencement of business was obtained by the company only after petitioner being joined in the company.
Rule. Mrs. Mauna N. Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 29.3.20 14 by which the respondent no.1 Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 2009-2010.
