This court vide order dated 15.9.2006 gave a clear mandate to the respondent no.4 to seek permission of the court before entering into any sale transaction but the respondents no.1 to 4 in utter disregard and blatant defiance of the said injunction order kept on selling its lands to various buyers who are also now facing the brunt of contumacious and contemptuous conduct of the respondents no. 1 to 4.
On perusal of records, it was found that the assessee has filed detailed objections on selection of two comparables. But the D.R.P. has not made any reference in the impugned order about the objections of the assessee. Thus, the order of the D.R.P. cannot be termed as a speaking order. The said order deserves to be set aside to file of DRP for fresh adjudication.
This appeal filed by the department is directed against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein certain refund claim was held to be admissible to the respondent and the amount for refund was directed to be quantified by the lower authority. The only ground raised in this appeal is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed a remand order without having the power of remand.
In the aforesaid view, no illegality is committed by the Tribunal in giving option to the respondent-assessee under the Proviso to section 11AC of the Act. It is held that the benefit of payment of reduced penalty can be availed by the assessee at the appellate stages also and it is not the import of the said provision that such benefit can be availed of only within 30 days from the communication of original order.
In the facts of a given case, the Court is always vested with the power to delete the name of the parties who are neither necessary nor proper to the proceedings before the Court. In the cases of group companies or where various agreements constitute a composite transaction like mother agreement and all other agreements being ancillary to and for effective and complete implementation of the Mother Agreement
The view taken in Pushpa Devi Bhagat’s case (supra) is in relation to the authority given to an Advocate to act on behalf of a party to a proceeding in the proceedings itself, which cannot stand satisfied where a provision such as Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act is concerned. The said provision clearly indicates that a signed copy of the Award has to be delivered to the party.
We overrule the decision in Sadanandan Bhadran’s case (supra) and hold that prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is also permissible so long as the same satisfies the requirements stipulated in the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Facially the provision of section 12AA would suggest that there are no restrictions of the kind which the revenue is reading into in the instant case. In other words, the statute does not prevent or enjoin the Commissioner from registering a trust based only on its objects, without any activity, in the case of a newly registered Trust. The statute does not prescribe a waiting period, for a trust to qualify itself for registration.
It was for the Assessing Officer to examine whether the disallowance offered by the assessee itself was sufficient on facts and circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the view he took regarding the applicability of rule 8D. It is not expected of him to take piecemeal decisions regarding the merits of the disallowance.
Service tax payer who is liable to pay Service Tax monthly & quarterly should pay Service Tax under New Category & Code only. As you are aware, Negative List based comprehensive approach to taxation of services has came into effect from the 1st July, 2012 and accordingly now for payment of Service Tax a new Minor Head – ‘All Taxable Services’ has been allotted under the Major Head 0044-Service Tax.
