Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application, unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances and that by itself means that exemption could be drawn under particular circumstances
Smt. Kavitha Rajakoti Vs. ITO (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Assessing Officer is required to act in a fair manner and need to consider the stay petition independently and pass a speaking order stating reasons as to why the stay application of the petitioner is not required to be considered
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in in the case of CIT vs. M/s P V S Memorial Hospital Ltd. held that deduction of TDS under a wrong section amounts to non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B which results in applicability of section 40(a)(ia) where the payments get disallowed and action u/s 201(1).
In case of Kottinatu Transporters vs. CIT, The Hon’ble Kerala HC by disposing off write petition held that the tax deduction under a heading by payer, it cannot be determinative of character of income of payee.
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the case of Thomas George Muthoot vs. CIT held that the second proviso to sec 40(a)(ia) is not curative by nature , the same is an additional remedy to provide non-disallowance in certain tax deduction default cases.
It has been held in case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD V/s. M/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS by supreme court that,As per the Department, these imports were under invoiced at pound 1.40 per litre whereas the actual price of the said goods was pound 3.78 per litre.
In the case of Shri Dharampal Lalchand Chug Vs CCE, it was held by Bombay High Court that the period of limitation prescribed in section 11A of the Act cannot be enlarged. Once it is possible to scrutinise and verify the compliance of the terms and conditions on which the exemption has been issued in this case
In the case of Vodafone India Ltd. V/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by Bombay High Court that by following the principles laid down in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, a telecom service provider is not entitled to credit of duty paid on towers
In the case of CCE V/s. M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as amended, applies to the cases where though an order has been passed directing refund, implementation of the order is pending.
Supreme Court held in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs Balwan Singh that the lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their clients, so they should act with the express consent of clients. Lawyers should not make any commitment without the consent of their clients and any commitment
