The issue under consideration is whether amount of service tax being statutory levy, received by assessee from its customers was to be included in calculating the aggregate amount referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act?
A full bench of Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the rights of a person working on a contractual basis to have the right of getting child care leave as same as any other regular Government employee. It was agreed that the child care leave is primarily for the benefit and a matter of right of the child, as a child whose mother happens to be employed on a contractual basis with the Government will have similar needs as any other child.
Bhuwan Chandra Pandey vs Union Of India And Others (Uttarakhand High Court) More than two decades have elapsed since the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment in case of Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 301, and formulate the famous ‘Vishakha guidelines‘, which inter alia providing guidance for the resolution of complaints through internal […]
M/s Livguard Energy Technologies (P) Ltd Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) Uttarakhand High Court has declined to accede to petitioner’s request for release of vehicle and goods seized on merely furnishing an indemnity bond. It observed that it would be inappropriate to issue a direction contrary to provisions of Section 129 of the […]
The amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by the ONGC (service recipient), representing the service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 44BB of the Act.
Kundan Singh Vs State & others (Uttarakhand High Court) Salary is the property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No GST or Service Tax can be deducted from the salary of the petitioners without any authority of law. It is reiterated that the Principal Employer is the State Government. The […]
CIT Vs M/s T.V. Sundaram Ayangar & Sons (Uttarakhand High Court) It is stated that since there was no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took some time to translate the documents. Lastly, it is stated that due to above mentioned reasons, delay has […]
This appeal is filed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Years 1997-98 onwards, for a period of eight years, till 2004-05. On the filing of the Appeal, an objection was raised by the respondent/ assessee, represented by Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate, that the Appeal is filed beyond time.
Commissioner Tax Vs M/s Hanuman Industries Kichha (Uttarakhand High Court) There is delay of 1819 days’ in filing the Revision. It is stated that after receiving the copy of the judgment dated 29.01.2013, matter was discussed at various levels and the proposal was received by the Department on 01.05.2013. It is stated that Department instructed […]
M/s Hillways Construction Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Department and others (Uttarakhand High Court); Admittedly Section 420 of IPC is an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC. Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, of which the petitioner is seeking benefit, categorically stipulates that in case prosecution is going on against a person […]
