The business of the erstwhile company will be continued to be carried by the amalgamated company; if the amalgamated company is deprived of the said benefit, it will frustrate the very purpose of amalgamation and defeat the order of amalgamation passed by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act.
UOI vs. R. Gandhi (Supreme Court – 5 Judges). Parliament is competent to constitute Tribunals for special Acts. However, the failure to ensure independence of judiciary and separation of judicial and executive power renders the Company Law Tribunal unconstitutional. Suggestions given on how to remedy the defects.
The assessee filed a Nil return after claiming depreciation. The AO disallowed depreciation but still assessed the total income at Rs. Nil. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on the disallowance which was deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that as the returned income and the assessed income was Nil, penalty could not be levied. The department filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on the basis that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied where the returned and assessed income were Nil.
These two civil appeals are filed by the Department against the order dated 2nd September, 2008, of the Gujarat High Court refusing to formulate, inter alia, the following question of law: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was right in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of
A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is – whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was, on the facts and circumstances of this case, justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for the purposes of computing the book profit under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961? In this civil
The workers of a contractor engaged by an establishment do not get the benefits of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, the Supreme Court stated last week in the judgment, Managing Director, Hassan Co-operative Milk Producer’s Society Union Ltd vs ESI Assistant Regional Director.
The assessee made a provision for bad debts by debiting the P & L A/c and crediting the Provision for Bad debts A/c. Thereafter, the provision account was debited and the loans and advances a/c was credited. The AO denied the claim for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the individual account of the debtor had not been written off.
A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court decided on Friday to refer to a larger bench the issue of imposition of entry tax on goods coming into jurisdiction of the respective states, involving financial implications to the tune of Rs 30,000 crore (Rs 300 billion).
A Writ Petition was filed challenging the order dated 17.7.2008 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, Janpath, New Delhi, (hereinafter `the Tribunal’), on various grounds with which this Court is not concerned. By that order, the Tribunal refused to dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty by the appellant and the concluding portion of that order is:
The Supreme Court (SC) last week dismissed the appeal of Maharashtra against the order of the Bombay high court in an arbitration dispute with Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. The company was given Stage IV of the Koyna Hydro Electric Project and differences arose over the amounts due and other issues. The disputes were referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
