Thus, post 1st June 2015, in the course of processing of a TDS statement and issuance of intimation u/s 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the ‘fee’, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E. Prior to 1st June 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act.
In both the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the plaint. The direction has been issued while considering the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1’s prayer for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ henceforth) for declaration that the petitioner is in possession and title holder of the suit land and the sale deed dated 9-4-2010 purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 is null and void being forged, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. Prayer for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession has also been made in the pliant.
HC held that photocopying the selected or even substantial parts of purchased books by the University to be used by the students and teachers in educational activity shall not be infringement of copyright as per Sec 52(1)(i).
Rule 11 of Appellate Tribunal Rules does not require a party to seek the leave of Tribunal in writing to be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, therefore, Tribunal was directed to adjudicate upon additional ground even if raised by way of oral request.
Amendment in Explanation 5A to Sec 271(1)(c) even when made effective by Finance Act ,2009 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007 cannot be made applicable to assessee’s case because both original return and the revised return u/s 153A of the Act have been filed before the amended provisions were brought into the statute (which received assent of President on 13.8.2009).
This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and grand-father of respondents 2 and 3. The trial Court has granted a decree of maintenance in favour of the respondents directing the appellant to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to the daughter-in-law and Rs. 1000/- each to two granddaughters who are respondents 2 and 3 herein.
This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant (for brevity ‘the husband’) to assail the legality and validity of the impugned judgement dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 208-A/2013, whereby his marriage with the respondent (for brevity ‘the wife’) has been annulled by issuing a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
AO is also equally responsible to find out whether the credit entry found on 01.07.2010 is genuine or not. The AO cannot take advantage of the ignorance or handicap of the assessee and say that there was undisclosed receipt by the assessee.
ITAT Kolkata held that the consequence, which were to be fall on account of non-observation of section 40A(3) must have nexus to the failure of object of introducing of the provision. Therefore, no disallowance can be made if the transactions do not defeat the object of Sec 40A(3) in as much as there genuiness is not challenged and they can be tracked end to end.
High court held that assessment proceedings to be invalid against the assessee in those cases where the assessee ceased to have legal existence on account of amalgamation with another entity on a date even prior to search. Because when the assessee ceased to have existence even on the date of search, no notice as a result of search can be issued in its name.
