Hind Wire Industries Ltd. V CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639 SC- What falls for consideration in the present case is the interpretation of the expression from the date of the order sought to be amended in sub-section (7) of section 154 as it stood then It is obvious that the word order has not been qualified in any way and it does not necessarily mean the original order It can be any order including the amended or rectified order.
he Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J.- Is the State vicariously liable for negligence of its officers in discharge of their statutory duties, was answered in the negative by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ratio laid down by this Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P
The Apex Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 held that a law which affects the substantive rights of any of the parties, the law cannot be retrospective. Every party has a vested right in substantative law but no such right exists in procedural law.
The issue under consideration is whether the employee joined as a trainee is eligible for gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?
IT authorities are empowered to amend any order passed by them under the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. A mistake is an omission made not by design but by mischance. A mistake apparent is a mistake that is manifest. In other words, the mistake must be so plain or obvious that it could be realised without a debate or dissertation
Under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Amendment Order, 1971, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and Mines and Metals, dated January 30, 1971, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Central Government prescribed certain maximum ex-distillery prices of ethyl alcohol as set out therein.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J.- The question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals, directed against orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (referred hereinafter as National Commission), New Delhi is if the statutory authorities such as Lucknow Development Authority
The question whether the charge was voluntary or involuntary will have to be decided with reference to the facts relating to the creation of such charge. If the charge is created voluntarily, it remains so, whether it is created before the amendment or after the amendment.
In Gannon Dunkerley and Co. and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Supreme Court held that in a building contract which is one, entire and indivisible there is no sale of goods, and it is not within the competence of the Provisional Legislature under Entry 48 to impose a tax on the supply of materials used in the contract treating it as sale
There is no finding of fact to the effect that actually the loan had been granted to the managing director or any other person on interest, or that interest had actually been collected and the collection of the interest was not reflected in the accounts.
