The special excise duty was being levied from 1963 upto 1971 by various Finance Acts passed from time to time. It was discontinued from 1972 until 1978 when it was revived by the Finance Act, 1978. Thereafter, it was being levied from year to year by annual Finance Acts.The provisions of these Finance Acts,insofar as the levy of special excise duty is concerned,are identical
The facts of this case were, the assessee had purchased a site and could not complete the construction of the house within the prescribed period of three years. However, the house was constructed and completed subsequently. Relief was given on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of reasons beyond the control of the assessee.
There is no mention of ‘fair market value’ in section 50(1); besides that the adjustments stated there are with reference to the written down value only which has nothing to do with the fair market value, and therefore, where the capital asset purchased by the assessee is a depreciable or non-depreciable asset, the assessee will have the option for substituting for its actual cost of acquisition its fair market value as on 1-1-1954 but where it is a depreciable asset and the assessee has enjoyed depreciable allowance, its cost of acquisition shall have to be determined as provided in section 50 – Commonwealth Trust Ltd. v. CIT
Explore the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (Commissioner of Income Tax) and understand whether the apparent can be considered as real. The judgment emphasizes the application of the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances in taxation matters. Learn about the key findings of the court, the relevance of the case in assessing income, and the caution against the indiscriminate application of the judgment in various scenarios.
Hind Wire Industries Ltd. V CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639 SC- What falls for consideration in the present case is the interpretation of the expression from the date of the order sought to be amended in sub-section (7) of section 154 as it stood then It is obvious that the word order has not been qualified in any way and it does not necessarily mean the original order It can be any order including the amended or rectified order.
he Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J.- Is the State vicariously liable for negligence of its officers in discharge of their statutory duties, was answered in the negative by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ratio laid down by this Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P
The Apex Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 held that a law which affects the substantive rights of any of the parties, the law cannot be retrospective. Every party has a vested right in substantative law but no such right exists in procedural law.
The issue under consideration is whether the employee joined as a trainee is eligible for gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?
IT authorities are empowered to amend any order passed by them under the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. A mistake is an omission made not by design but by mischance. A mistake apparent is a mistake that is manifest. In other words, the mistake must be so plain or obvious that it could be realised without a debate or dissertation
Under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Amendment Order, 1971, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and Mines and Metals, dated January 30, 1971, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Central Government prescribed certain maximum ex-distillery prices of ethyl alcohol as set out therein.
