The Central Government on 07th April informed the Supreme Court vide a 27-page affidavit that there is no need to open the window allowing all categories of people to deposit old demonetised notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 after December 31, 2016 under some special circumstances as no justifiable reason exists either in law […]
I find it difficult to accept much of this. Indeed I would question the assertion that the concept of an acting-based talent hunt is unique, novel, distinct or that it was first adopted by Zee. That needs much more material, and I can find it nowhere in these papers.
Issue- Notification with reference to the Amendment to Rule 32 and Rule 81 of the Central Motor vehicles Rules with reference to increase of Fees vide Gazette Notification in G.S.R.1183(E) dated 29.12.2016 as invalid, illegal, ultravires and unconstitutional. Facts of the case-This batch of Writ Petitions has been filed by various Associations namely Chennai City […]
As the applicant is not a signatory to the cheque, no liability can be fastened upon him for the dishonour of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus.
The complainant submits that because the complainant was to deposit the court fees, but due to financial insufficiency suffered by him, he could not make the deposit at the relevant time. It is also contended that during the said period, the Demonetisation was also in force, therefore, his non-deposit of the court fees be condoned and setting aside order dated 17.1.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, time may be granted to deposit the court fees.
Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee challenging an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.6.2015 confirming imposition of penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act (in short Act) though reducing the quantum from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs.
This Appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 23rd April, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008- 09.
In our view, Questions No.2 and 3 seeks to raise an issue of law, which, already stands covered against the Revenue. We are, in respectful agreement, with the views taken by the Karnataka and Allahabad High Courts, as articulated in their respective judgments to which reference is made hereinabove.
