In the instant case, the matter has been pending since 1999, and there has been no progress. The respondent/Department stated that the petitioner/Firm was an accused. Furthermore, the Principal Sessions Court, while granting permission to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s Application for compounding the offence, in its order, dated 28.04.20 15, observed that the offences are compoundable in nature, therefore, leave is granted to the competent Authority to compound the offence.
The writ petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is aggrieved by the refusal – by the respondents i.e. the income tax authorities -to release the jewellery – approximately 319. 98 g, seized by them in the course of search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act).
In the present case, in the face of clear findings that loan applications were processed by Officers of Assessee and loan transactions in question of aforesaid 37 persons were also handled really by Assessee and further in view of categorical finding that loan amounts were not reflected in returns of 37 persons in question, we do not see how High Court could have taken above view and remanded atter to Assessing Officer.
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 3.12.2013 for A.Y 2009-10 wherein the Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal
We take this opportunity to remind the State Government to put in place a policy decision to ensure that the Print and Electronic Media does not while reporting instances of similar nature from furnishing any details which are capable of enabling the readers or general public to come to know of the identity of either the victims or those juveniles who are in conflict with law.
In a land mark 570 Page Judgment on 14.02.2017 Supreme Court has sent VK Sasikala and her two relatives to jail for four years for corruption. Supreme court also barred VK Sasikala from holding public office or contesting elections for 10 years after holding her guilty of amassing wealth disproportionate to her known income. She was also fined Rs. 10 crore by the court.
The Appellant raised the tax invoices on the purchasers as per the policy of manufacturers of vehicles to maintain uniformity in the price thereof. After the sales were completed, credit notes were issued to the customers granting discounts, in order to meet the competition in the market and for allied reasons.
It was held that impounded loose sheet can at the most be termed as dumb document which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not relied upon and made the basis of addition.
As there is no representational right conferred by AAI on the petitioners, the OM DA cannot constitute a franchise in terms of Section 65(47) of the Finance Act. Further as no service is being provided by AAI to the petitioners, there cannot be said to be any taxable service in terms of section 65(105) (zze).
In this case, the expenditure clearly is not towards acquisition of the capital nor is it an integral part of it, it is only the service alone. It is of a similar kind that would otherwise have been permitted under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
