Makkhan Singh Vs Shyam Singh And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court) CPC-Constructive notice, held not sufficient-‘Willful disobedience’ to be proved beyond doubt-Court not to proceed on surmises or inferences As regards the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioners with regard to presumption of service of notice in a case of a notice sent by […]
Financial stringency would not justify the non-remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government. As such, by extending its benevolence.
We observe that the said provision clearly links profiteering to be a function of each supply of goods or services or both and hence, profiteering needs to be computed at the level of each invoice and not at the entity level or any consolidated level.
Whether the payment of provident fund and employees state insurance (ESI) dues deposited by the Assessee within the grace period would qualify for deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
DCIT Vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, the appellant has shifted its global depository receipt exchange from AIM London stock exchange to the main market London stock exchange without increasing any capital but to provide a bigger platform to global depository receipt holders to trade their holding. The learned […]
Assessing Officer ought to have evaluated the claim made by the assessee for write-off of liability by Canara Bank in its favour amounting to Rs. 1,36,45,525/-, and should not have rejected the same merely on the ground of it being raised for the first time.
In the present case the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by only mentioning in Column No. 12 ‘YES’, in the Reasons for Initiating Proceedings u/s. 147 and For obtaining the Approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax. On this count the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed.
Court held that where the Act provides for sanction by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of section 151, then the sanction by the Commissioner of Income Tax would not meet the requirement of the Act and the reopening notice will be without jurisdiction.
Devrajbhai Vikrambhai Sambad Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount computed by the respondents towards fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance, subject to the final order that may be passed by the respondents […]
Mahendrasinh (Mahendraji) Chaganji Gohel Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 132(1)(b) of the […]
