In these appeals, the appellant is Union of India, which has assailed the common judgment and order dated July 14, 2008, passed by High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, in a batch of writ petitions. Those writ petitions were filed by some chit fund companies (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessees’) assailing the validity […]
The Supreme Court directed the central government to initiate process to fill up vacancies in the income Tax Appellate Tribunals within three weeks.
Section 2 (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for a complainant making a complaint, inter alia, for an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider; a complaint in respect of goods (bought by a complainant) suffering from one or more defects;
(i) We hold that the Parliament was fully competent to enact Section 139AA of the Act and its authority to make this law was not diluted by the orders of this Court. (ii) We do not find any conflict between the provisions of Aadhaar Act and Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act inasmuch as when interpreted harmoniously, they operate in distinct fields.
Assessee in all these appeals is Honda SIEL Cars Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Assessee). Question of law that is raised is also identical. Five appeals are filed only because of the reason that same issue has occurred in different Assessment Years, i.e., for the years 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2005-2006.
The issue that a particular expenditure incurred by assessee is a capital expenditure or a revenue one has remained controversial. The facts & circumstances of each case differ. However, the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this respect guide in resolving the issue.
We are extremely unhappy with the delay of 3381 days in refiling the special leave petition but make no other comment. The concerned authorities need to wake up.
It is clear from the reading of Section 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, that whenever complaints are received from a number of depositors against a Financial Establishment, which defaults or fails to return the deposits or fails to provide services for which the deposits have […]
The appellant, an assessee under the KVAT Act, classified the product, “Appy Fizz” as fruit juice based drink under Entry 71 of the notification issued under Section 6(1)(d) of Act, 2003 paid @ 12.5% VAT. In the year 2007, the Department initiated assessment proceedings against one of the distributors of the assessee finding that the product, “Appy Fizz”, being an “aerated branded soft drink” is taxable @ 20%. The OT Revision filed against the order was dismissed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition filed against the order was later permitted to be withdrawn.
In fact, some justifications have already appeared in this behalf while discussing the matter on the application of doctrine of proportionality. What needs to be repeated is only that the purpose and objective behind the Act is to discourage and stop anti-competitive practice.
