Invoking provisions contained in Section 26(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1961’) read with Rule 19(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 1962’), the election petitioner, petitioner herein has preferred this revision calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 114/2015 by which learned District Judge/Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition instituted by the petitioner herein under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1961 and declined to the election of respondent herein/Vice-President Office of Nagar Panchayat, Bodri District Bilaspur as null & void.
Appellant would assail her conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘the IPC’ in short) and sentence of life imprisonment for committing murder of her husband namely; Rohit Kumar (since deceased), a rickshaw puller, in the intervening night of 25/26.06.2003.
The petitioner having preferred writ petition in the name of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat without supported with the resolution of the Gram Panchayat was not authorised to maintain the writ petition.
ITAT held that that the payment made by the assessee to ICC amounting to Rs. 4.56 crore as `Rights fee’ is not in the nature of `Royalty’ or `Fees for technical services’ covered u/s 9(1)(vi) or 9(1(vii) of the Act and as such the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on this payment. Ex consequenti, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not attracted.
It is very strange that FAA,being a judicial authority,has held that non providing opportunity of cross examination would not vitiate the assessment proceedings.If the AO/assessee wants to rely upon the statements of someone it is their duty to prove the truthfulness of such statements.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that Ext.P6 communication has been issued to the petitioner under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (for brevity the LLP Act), which according to the petitioner, they are not obliged to comply with.
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) on common grounds. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off through this consolidated order.
In view of the observation made in the preceding paragraph (22), the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Department of Petroleum, Government of India for information and appropriate needful action against the erring officials of IOCL, the respondent herein.
What has been sold was ancestral agricultural land which belongs to the HUF and it has been brought to tax in the hands of HUF after the death of Sh. Amarchand. There is no partition of HUF and there is no finding of any partition given by the Assessing Officer u/s 171 of the Act.
In the light of various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, we hope that wisdom would prevail on the lawyers, so far as the present call to abstain from work is taken by the respondents. It is needless to say that everyone including the community of lawyers have to abide by the directions of the Apex Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution.
