The fact in the instant case is that the assessee has submitted its return, which was assessed, but subsequently it was found that there is some suppression in submission of return so far as it relates to gross turn-over of the assessee and as such, reassessment order has been directed to be initiated under the provisions of Section 12(8) of the Act.
Commnr.,Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs Sanket Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Orissa High Court) Heard Mr.P.Mohapatra, learned Standing counsel for the Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. Petitioners have filed this application to review/modification of the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21861 […]
Hon’ble Odisha High Court has granted stay on the recovery of Late fee charged Under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act,1961. In Separate cases Hon’ble Bombay, Rajashthan, Kerala and Karnataka High Court has already stayed the Recovery Proceeding U/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act,1961 till the final verdict in the case.
Section 132(1)(iii) empowers the authorized officer to seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found as a result of such search which represent either wholly or partly undisclosed income or property of the person. However, the proviso carves out an exception.
Department cannot take advantage of its own inaction and lapses by taking a stand that the financial year is over. Such action of the opposite parties as rightly apprehended by the petitioner would lead to unnecessary complication and unavoidable and inappropriate proceedings. Had the certificate been given in time as was done in the previous year there would not have been any necessity for making any deduction of tax by some of the principals from the payments made to the petitioner and the ultimate consequence, because of Departmental inaction, the Assessee-petitioner has to again go through the process of seeking refund in its assessment.
There is no material evidence on record to show that the assessee had produced any reconciliation statement of interest and contractual receipts as per TDS certificate compared to turnover credited in the P & L Account as per the audited statement. In view of the provisions of Section 237 of the Income Tax Act and averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, it cannot be said that there is any laches on the part of opp. parties-Department in not granting refund to the petitioner as claimed in its return.
Chief Commissioner has relied on the Government of India resolution providing for fee structure, 1997 and the Government of Orissa Industries Department Resolution dated 17.09.1998 to come to a conclusion that the fees collected towards “placement and training” is in excess of what was prescribed by the said resolutions. Petitioner’s case is that the resolution relied upon by the Chief Commissioner no more holds the field in view of the Act, 2007 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.06.2007
The refusal of OSIL to convert 35,00,000 warrants held by Bhushan Energy Limited into equal number of equity shares may amount to a breach of contract but such breach of contract cannot constitute the ingredients of a complaint under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act. As decided in the case of Incable Net (Andhra) Ltd. (supra), such breach could give rise to an action of breach of contract under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972.
The offence alleged in the complaint against the petitioner is not a ‘continuous wrong’ and, therefore, the bar to take cognizance as contemplated under section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the complaint lodged in the present case and, therefore, taking cognizance of such an offence after more than 11 years is clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed and is clearly barred in law. In the result, the instant petition is allowed and the order of cognizance and summons issued in aforesaid cases are set aside.
The issue under consideration is whether the employee joined as a trainee is eligible for gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?
