May 5, 2024 11:27 am

Direct Taxation

What is required to be considered is what was under challenge before the Tribunal as well as the High Court – and not the subsequent reduction of penalty by the CIT(A) – Therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal before the High Court at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order passed by the ITAT was not maintainable in view of CBDT circular.

Bysclaw

Apr 23, 2022

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

“Court Rules in Favor of Mobile Providers: Prepaid Sales Not Subject to TDS”

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 139 and 147 – A return filed without the regular balance sheet and profit and loss account may be a defective one but certainly not invalid – A defective return cannot be regarded as an invalid return –

Jan 28, 2024 sclaw

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 32(1) – Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Rule 5(1A) – There is no requirement under the second proviso to sub-rule (1A) of Rule 5 of the Rules that any particular mode of computing the claim of depreciation has to be opted for before the due date of filing of the return

Dec 10, 2023 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Customs & Excise

“Central Excise Dispute: Fresh Start Ordered! Court Remands Case for Tribunal to Reassess Impact of Missing Letter on Show Cause Notices” Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35C (2) – Orders of Appellate Tribunal – The appellant, M/S Madura Coats is involved in a legal dispute with the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the clearance of goods without payment of duty – The case involves multiple orders and appeals, with the primary contention being the non-furnishing of a crucial letter dated 20.01.2001 – The main issue is whether the non-furnishing of the letter dated 20.01.2001 has caused prejudice to the appellant’s ability to respond to the show cause notices effectively – The appellant contends that the final order by the tribunal, which directed the respondent to furnish the letter dated 20.01.2001, is binding and its non-compliance should result in the appeals being allowed – The respondent argues that the letter dated 20.01.2001 is the appellant’s own document and its absence does not prejudice the appellant’s case – They also assert that the appellant has been delaying the adjudication process – The court affirmed the High Court’s decision to remand the matter back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication of the show cause notices, subject to the appellant demonstrating how the non-furnishing of the letter has caused prejudice – The court reasoned that the letter dated 20.01.2001 was not relied upon adversely against the appellant and that the appellant should have retained a copy of their own document – The court found that the non-furnishing of the letter did not violate principles of natural justice as it was not used to draw adverse inferences against the appellant – The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the matter was remanded back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication, with the appellant’s contentions kept open

May 5, 2024 sclaw

“Sudden Fight, Not Murderous Intent: Supreme Court Reclassifies Conviction, Reduces Sentenc” Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 304 – The appeal challenges the High Court’s decision to uphold the appellant’s conviction for murder, arguing that the conviction under Section 302 can be converted to Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – The appellant argued that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation and there was no intention to cause death, suggesting the offense falls under Section 304 – The respondent-State maintained that the concurrent findings of the courts below were correct and warranted no interference – The Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for eight years and a fine – The Court found that the incident occurred in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, without undue advantage or cruelty by the appellant – The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the conviction to Part I of Section 304 with a reduced sentence and fine, considering the time already served by the appellant.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw