The complainant submits that because the complainant was to deposit the court fees, but due to financial insufficiency suffered by him, he could not make the deposit at the relevant time. It is also contended that during the said period, the Demonetisation was also in force, therefore, his non-deposit of the court fees be condoned and setting aside order dated 17.1.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, time may be granted to deposit the court fees.
The Hon’ble MP High court in the above stated case placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. President, Rajasthan Roadways Union & Anr.
On going through the aforesaid reason, it is clear that the appellant has filed the application in a most casual manner, without justifying the reason for condonation of such a huge delay. In the circumstances, in the absence of any sufficient cause to explain the delay of 227 days
CIT Vs M/s Global Reality (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The next question that needs to be answered, is, whether the stipulation in Section 80IB(10)(a) can be said to be directory. Considering the prodigious benefit offered in terms of Section 80IB to the assessee (hundred per cent of the profits derived in any previous year relevant […]
CIT Vs. Mechmen (Madhya Pradesh High Court) In this case court observed that satisfaction was not recorded by the AO before issuing notice u/s 153C which is a fact decided by ITAT. No paper or document was seized against the assessee in the search operation.
In this case Joint Commissioner had acted mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format Yes, I am satisfied which indicated as if he was to sign only on the dotted line, whereas satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material. Thus, reopening of assessment was invalid.
In the Case of Shree Builders Vs. UOI, M.P.High Court issued notice to Union of India against validity of section 234E of Income Tax Act,1961 and granted stay of demand. Case was argued by A.P.Shrivastava Advocate accompanied by Advocate Sapan Usrethe.
In the present case, in September 2007 the search was carried out in the premises of Dr. Yogi Raj Sharma. The document Annexure RJ-1 was seized by the respondents. At the relevant time petitioner no. 1 was the Chief Health Secretary and this fact was within the knowledge
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a joint venture with Government of Madhya Pradesh, declared its total income nil in its return filed for the assessment year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The book profit was calculated under section 115JB of the Act.
Board had issued directions that the appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds Rs.2 lakhs in the matter of High Court in appeals U/s 260A or Reference U/s 256(2). The aforesaid circular is binding on all the authorities under the Board including the appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The Board had taken this decision in continuation to earlier directions issued by the Board on 28.10.1992 where the monitory limit was Rs. 50,000/-. Now in view of the changed circumstances, as directed by the Board by instruction dated 27.3.2000, it is apparent that the appeal or reference below Rs. 2 lakhs, could not have been filed. The instructions of the Board are binding to all the authorities working under the Board including the appellant. This appeal which was filed on 10.1.2005 is fully covered by the instructions issued by the Board on 27.3.2000, and this appeal could not have been filed . The aforesaid position has been clarified by two Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Chand Goyal and Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co. (supra).
