The assessee as well as the Revenue is in cross appeal against the impugned order dated 29/11/2013 of the First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. In the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.658/Mum/2014), the first ground raised pertains to confirming the reopening u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
In view of Companies Act, 1956 being a special statute and upon considering the language of section 10-F, in my view it is clear that the Company Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period of 60 days.
In this appeal the only issue that is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified in holding that the purchase of sales tax exemption certificates is a revenue expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Amount of TDS was debited from the bank account of the assessee on the due date i.e. 7.10.2009 and the delay in deposit of such tax by a day was on account of system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end, which were beyond the control of the assessee.
Since assessee had not claimed any expenditure in its computation of income, there was no scope for dis allowance under section 14A as dis allowance under the section can be made only when deduction of certain expenditure is claimed.
NCLT held that the principle of imposition of minimum penalty is non-mandatory in compounding of offenses cases, it is necessary to define and understand offense. The term offence has been defined by s 3(38) of General Clauses Act, as any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force.
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;
A reader should be able to come to his / her own conclusion by applying the legislative enactments and judicial pronouncements to the facts of the case. While re-producing any portion of legislative enactment or judicial pronouncement, it is para phrased and emphasis is supplied by way of underline.
NCLT has cleared that once a petition is admitted by the NCLT under IBC, both the parties have no right to withdraw the petition. As it can say IBC is not a Recovery Law it is Revival Law.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 129 E of the Indian Customs Act, 1962, that makes pre- deposit mandatory for filing an appeal before the tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) concerned.
