M/s Sasi Enterprises, the firm, did not file any returns for the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93, for which the firm and its partners are being prosecuted under Section 276CC of the Act. J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala did not file returns for the assessment year 1993-94 and hence
The Supreme Court has upheld that order of the Bombay High Court and held that parking spaces cannot be sold by the builder. They are a part of the common areas and the cost of that land has to be charged to all the flat-owners in proportion to their carpet area.
On a close reading of the SC judgment, but in between lines, one is left with an indelible impression that the court, in deciding the issue in the Respondent’s favour, though not explicitly said so, appears to have been inclined to go by the SUBSTANCE, instead of the FORM.
SC has dismissed the revenue appeal in which the Allahabad High Court had confirmed the ITAT stand of quashing the assessment order on the ground that the assessment order in the name of individuals could not be made when the warrant of authorisation was issued in the joint names of Ashok Chawla, Smt. Madhu Chawla and Shri Anuj Chawla.
The High Court’s power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). This power is subject, however, to two conditions, (one) the Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions, and (two) the Court has to record reasons therefor.
The Supreme Court today held in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. that no approval from the Centre is required by CBI to prosecute senior bureaucrats in court-monitored corruption cases, strengthening the arms of the agency to go ahead against the officials without taking prior sanction from government.
Under these circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed and process in Criminal Case No. 1171/SS/2009 pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai deserves to be quashed, accordingly, quashed against the appellant herein. The appeal is allowed.
Section 132B(4) (b) deals with pre-assessment period and there is no conflict between this provision and Section 240 or for that matter 244 (A). The former deals with pre assessment period in the matters of search and seizure and the later deals with post assessment period as per the order in appeal.
In Sandvik case, Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding certain amount which included the statutory interest and therefore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same not an interest on interest.
Honorable SC held that If every decision taken by the State is tested by a microscopic and a suspicious eye, the administration will come to stand still and the decisions-makers will lose all their initiative and enthusiasm.
