There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization.
As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition being sans substratum, deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
Section 158BC(c): Where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any person
Brief– By donating the amount, the firm had been able to attract good Articled Clerks and other professional persons who are the backbone of any professional practice. Thus there was a good professional reason for the firm to contribute to the building fund of the Branch of the ICAI. The said payment satisfies the commercial […]
A declaration in the return filed by Assessee under Wealth Tax Act would certainly be a relevant fact for determination of cost of acquisition which under Section 55(2) of Act to be determined by a determination of fair market value.
If the expenditure consists of merely facilitating the assessee to carry on business more profitably leaving the fixed capital untouched, it would be on revenue account.
Assessee will be entitled for benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of Act if he demolished new asset being residential house purchased by him within period of three years from the date of purchase in violation to Section 54F(3) of Act.
Tribunal noted that the respondent had claimed the set off of its business income of Rs. 1.85 crores against the brought forward business losses of the earlier years on the basis of a legal opinion received from a leading firm of Chartered Accountants dated 15.06.2001.
ITAT held that application under the provisions of sec.254(2) seeking rectification of order passed by tribunal is maintainable only in cases where it was established that specific attention of the bench was drawn to a particular decision and the decision was specifically relied upon but not considered by the Tribunal.
The facts, in brief, are that the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed interest payment of Rs.3,61,356/- being capital introduced in M/s King Empire Developers (AOP), on the plea that the interest bearing funds were diverted, without charging any interest, out of own funds. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) granted relief to […]
