|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1462 Records
-
2017 (7) TMI 1327 - ITAT MUMBAI
Bogus purchases u/s 69C - assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to prove that purchase made were genuine - AO has also added the GP @8% on the total bogus purchases - CIT(A) has applied GP margin at 5.07% and restricted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find that there are divergent views of various High Courts on what amount of GP should be applied in such bogus purchases. We find that in the case of Smith and Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that a trader sold some goods and he would purchase the same from other sources.
When the total sale is accepted by the AO he could not have questioned the very basis of purchase. Therefore purchases are not bogus but they are made from parties other than those who are mentioned in the books of account. This being the decision not the entire purchase price but only the profit element in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of such bogus purchase will be justified in the facts of this case also. Therefore, we modify the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance the extent of 12.5% of such bogus purchases - Appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1326 - SC ORDER
Checks on delays - Maintenance of 'Call Book' - Whether Circular No.162/73/95-CX dated 14th December, 1995 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is in conformity/authorized by the provisions of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules?
HELD THAT:- Issue Notice.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1325 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Business Auxiliary Services - providing space in the show room to bank and financial institution for selling of their loan product for which they are receiving the commission - demand of service tax on such commission - HELD THAT:- Considering the Larger Bench decision in M/S PAGARIYA AUTO CENTER VERSUS CCE, AURANGABAD [2014 (2) TMI 98 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)], which decided the issue that amount received as commission from the bank of financial institution for the sale of the loan is liable for service tax - demand upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1324 - ITAT CHENNAI
Assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C - ‘Assessment of income of any other person - documents seized in search - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the income stands already returned with reference to the profit (loss) disclosed in the assessee’s operating statement (profit and loss account), found and seized in search. Also, the balance-sheet also agrees with that furnished as a part of the return of income. The opportunity provided by us to the Revenue to exhibit the AO’s satisfaction was guided primarily by the intent to find the basis thereof in-as-much as it could well be that there has been some omission in writing the satisfaction note, even as the satisfaction is otherwise discernible from the seized material itself.
It is in doubt surprising, even as observed during hearing, that the assessee’s audited accounts were found at the place of another, but that, a valid ground for making further investigation, is by itself not sufficient for invoking s. 153C, or regarding the ingredients of the said provision, as satisfied. There has been thus no valid assumption of jurisdiction for the issue of notice there-under and, accordingly, the impugned assessment, framed u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 153A, is bad in law.
It is not any seized material belonging to, but only that which has a bearing on the determination of total income of, such other person, that shall give rise to the special jurisdiction envisaged by the provision. The same only seeks to take the circumstance of the seized material found in search in respect of the assessee to its logical conclusion, without which the provision becomes open ended and, accordingly, liable to be regarded as arbitrary.
Legislative intent is to be the foundation of any interpretative exercise. Again, it cannot be lost sight of that the earlier assessment may be, as in the instant case, under verification procedure, i.e., u/s. 143(3) or u/s. 144. And, therefore, in the absence of any such caveat or condition in the provision, the ensuing assessment would only be a review, impermissible under the scheme of the Act - See M/S. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] and KALYANJI MAVJI AND CO. [1975 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1323 - SC ORDER
Scope of show cause notice - demand was raised under the category of BAS - demand was confirmed under the different category - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1322 - ITAT CHENNAI
Unexplained income of assessee u/s.69 - Addition of cash deposited into savings bank account and amount deposited into current account of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Section-69 makes it clear that onus is on the assessee as regards furnishing of explanation relating to deposits, which is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained by the assessee. Where the assessee offers no explanation or where the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the AO’s opinion, the value of the unexplained investments, the value of the unexplained investments would be treated as income of the financial year in question. Whenever explanation offered by the assessee were not fully relied upon by the Department, it cannot be said that the Department had any further burden to prove that this was an income of assessee. Where the assessee had failed to prove the source of investments to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO should be justified in treating the same as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act.
In the present case, the plea of assessee is that it is the part of the undisclosed turnover and being so, only GP of such to be estimated as income of assessee. The assessee, before us, was not able to show the details of the sales made by the assessee with reference to any purchase.
As rightly pointed out by the ld.D.R, all the purchases and expenditure already recorded by the assessee in its books of accounts and once the purchases and expenses were already recorded by the assessee in his books of accounts, there is no question of estimating any income. On such deposits made into bank account, the entire unaccounted deposits to be considered as unexplained income of assessee u/s.69of the Account.
Another argument that Sec.285A provides only information with regard to cash deposit into SB A/c and it does not authorize the AO to collect information with reference to current account. In my opinion, addition made by the AO u/s.69 of the Act as explained earlier. Section 69 authorizes the AO to consider unexplained deposits into bank account, whenever assessee failed to explain the source of such deposits. Being so, no infirmity in the order of lower authorities and the same is confirmed. - Decided against assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1321 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation of imported goods - suppression of facts on import in misdeclaring the MRP - non-applicability of the cited case laws relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) categorically recorded that there is no dispute in respect of description, classification and quantity of the impugned goods and the appellant had declared RSP - He, therefore, found that the adjudicating authority could not proceed to determine the MRP/RSP in absence of any enabling provisions in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1320 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of irrecoverable debt (TDS certificates) written off - addition on the premise that TDS recoverable from customer is not a bad debt and non receipt of TDS certificate cannot be reason for non claim of TDS credit due to appellant - whether deduction of irrecoverable TDS is not available due to non-compliance with provisions of Income tax Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- Identical issue having similar facts was a subject matter of the departmental appeal in the case of ACIT, Circel-5(1), New Delhi Vs Kelly Services India Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 83 - ITAT DELHI] wherein the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by observing what is material is the factors or the circumstances which cause loss & if the loss occurred during the course of carrying on the business, it is incidental to it and, hence, allowable. Admittedly, in this case, the assessee suffered loss during the course of carrying on its business therefore, same is allowable - as the issue involved is having the similar facts as involved in the case of CIT vs. Shreyans Industries Limited, the order of the CIT (A) on this issue sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1319 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - peak credit addition - applying 0.50% by the AO on the sales respectively - HELD THAT:- CA appointed by the CBI prepared the audit report without confronting the same to the assessee. AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to some of the debtors and creditors and most of these parties were verified by the AO. It is only in the case of three creditors that the notices issued u/s 133(6) were returned unserved.
Out of the three concerns M/s Stads Ltd was struck-off from the Register of Companies and the second concern M/s Pashupati Fabric Ltd was under liquidation before commencement of reassessment proceedings. AO has not brought to the notice of the assessee that the notices sent to these parties were returned unserved and proceeded to frame the assessment believing these parties to be non-genuine. It is also submitted that before the AO, the necessary documents could not be produced because the records were in the custody of CBI.
FAA has comprehensively considered various facts and contention of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the addition of ₹ 10,00,523/- were made on the basis of peak credit which was wrong as the assessee has fully disclosed all the transactions in its books of account.
CIT(A) also deleted the addition at the rate of 0.5% of the total sales on the ground that the assessee has fully disclosed the sales and purchases in its books of account and whatever profit or loss earned on these transactions were duly calculated and filed before the AO in the return of income. We are inclined to agree with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) . Accordingly , the appeal of the revenue department is dismissed.
Addition u/s 68 in respect of unsecured loans from Pashupati Fabric Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The confirmation on account was also filed before the ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has also recorded the findings of facts that the said buyer M/s Pashupati Fabric Ltd has paid up share capital of ₹ 91,21,77,200/- and therefore, the creditworthiness of the said party was not in doubt and finally deleted the addition after examining the various documents in the paper book which proved the transaction to be genuine and the advances was adjusted in the subsequent years and thus deleted the addition. In our opinion, the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this point is very reasoned order which call for no interference on our part as the FAA has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the addition by the AO was made on the wrong understanding of facts that unsecured loan was received by the assessee whereas as a matter of facts the advance were received against the sale of software which was finally supplied on 8.5.2006. We, therefore, uphold the order of he ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the ground raised by the revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1318 - ITAT CHENNAI
Apportionment of royalty expenditure - CIT(A) has erred in allowing 25% of royalty payment as capital expenditure and the balance 75% as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2011 (2) TMI 1417 - ITAT CHENNAI] the facts of the case in hand and point at issue decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Southern Switchgears Ltd. as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [1997 (12) TMI 105 - SC ORDER] and the ld. CIT(A) has followed such decision to give part relief to the assessee and no distinguishing feature has been pointed by the ld. DR in this regard.
Allowance of additional depreciation - assessee entitlement to carry forward 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year when the plant and machinery was put in use less than 180 days in the preceding previous year - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Technology and Engineering Industries Ltd. v. DCIT [2016 (6) TMI 44 - ITAT CHENNAI] wherein as held the assessee is entitled to claim 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year when the plant and machinery was put in use for less than 180 days in the preceding previous year and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee. Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue for both the assessment years is dismissed.
Disallowance of the marketing service fees paid to India Piston Limited - HELD THAT:- Similar facts in an identical issue in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2003-04 to 2005-06 [2011 (2) TMI 1417 - ITAT CHENNAI] as held IP Rings Ltd. does not have any market set up in its own and when specifically pointed out that there is already clause in the agreement for payment technical consultancy fee payable at 5%, the assessee’s counsel asserted further that there was a dire need for such expenditure and it has been used for launching of the new product without which the assessee could not appropriately market the new product. But, when asked to supply certain data in details about judgment and other details, the assessee was unable to do so. We are inclined to concur with the conclusion as drawn by the ld. CIT(A), who is found to have considered each and every aspect of the issue before arriving at the conclusion drawn by him when no contrary material has been provided by the assessee in this regard and dismiss this ground of appeal
-
2017 (7) TMI 1317 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Jurisdiction - power of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- Similar issues have been dealt with in various cases by the Tribunal recently. It is held that the matters have to be remanded back to the original authority for a decision after the legal issue is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court - reliance placed in the case of M/S DOABA STUD & AGRICULTURE FARM, SHRI YADVENDRA SINGH, PARTNER VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI (I&G) [2017 (6) TMI 695 - CESTAT NEW DELHI].
The impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1316 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of application - reopening of assessment - change of opinion - Reassessment and for calculating the entry tax payable by the petitioner Company - HELD THAT:- The enunciation of law laid down in the matter of The Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. M/s. A. Raman and Co. [1967 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court has further been followed recently in the matter of Jeans Knit Private Ltd. Bangalore v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore and it has clearly been held that writ petition filed by the assessee challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons which were recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment is maintainable.
In the present case, the concluded assessment has been sought to be reopened on the basis of amendment made in the definition of "market value" as contained in the Entry Tax Act and thereafter, certain directions have been issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax even to reopen the concluded assessment.
It is established that reassessment notice was issued by the State Government on the basis of circular issued by the Commercial Tax Officer as the petitioner did not include the royalty aspect for determination of market value on goods for the purpose of payment of entry tax - it is crystal clear that in the instant case, assessment has been made as per law in force and after the definition of "market value" is amended with effect from 1-4-2014, and on that basis, circular has been issued by the State Government, the proceeding for reassessment of concluded assessment was initiated and it was concluded making reassessment and taking the amended definition of "market value" into account, and except the circular of the Commissioner directing opening of reassessment even of concluded assessment on the basis of amendment brought into force from 1-4-2014, there is no fresh/additional material brought on record which can be made basis for reopening the concluded assessment by the assessing officer.
The assessing authority has sought to reopen the assessment and made reassessment only on the basis of change of opinion and on the basis of the circular issued by the State Government by which the Commissioner, Commercial Tax has directed to take into account the amount of royalty in calculating the entry tax without being any additional/fresh material brought on record. The circular of the State Government is based on change in law in the definition of "market value" which is only prospective in nature.
The SCN issued for reassessment under Section 22 (1) of the Act, 2005 and the final order passed on such reassessment during the pendency of this writ petition, deserve to be quashed - petition allowed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1315 - ITAT DELHI
Assessment u/s 153A - whether there was no incriminating material and assessments for the assessment years under consideration were not abated? - HELD THAT:- CIT (Appeals) has held that in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search and in absence of abetment of assessment on the date of search, the additions made under section 153A of the Act is not sustainable. In absence of rebuttal of these findings of the CIT (Appeals), the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained.
The audit report directed during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., in our view, cannot be treated as incriminating material found during the course of search to justify the addition made in the assessment under section 153A. It is also not the case of the Revenue that on the date of search assessments in the case of assessee were abetted. We thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cited decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] hold that the ld. CIT (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment framed under section 153A - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (7) TMI 1314 - ITAT PUNE
TPA - comparable selection - exclusion of concern FCS Software Ltd. from the list of comparable companies - HELD THAT:- Segmental accounts were not available. Secondly, the said concern cannot be selected as comparable because of the filters applied by the TPO himself in selecting the concerns; one of the filters was companies with income from IT services more than 50% of the operating revenue or segmental revenue were to be selected. However, the said company had earned 42% of its total revenue from providing software services and applying the filter selected by the TPO, the said concern is to be excluded from the final list of comparables. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal No.1 raised by the Revenue.
Exclusion of Infosys Technologies Ltd. and L&T Infotech being not comparable for not fulfilling the filter of turnover and also the brand - As relying on TIBCO SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 7, PUNE AND VICE-VERSA [2017 (1) TMI 1574 - ITAT PUNE] we uphold the order of CIT(A) in excluding Infosys Technologies Ltd. and L&T Infotech Ltd. from the final list of comparables, wherein the said concerns were product companies and functionally not comparable. Further, the said concerns are not comparable because of high turnover, as against the assessee having very low turnover in the field of provision of software services. Accordingly, the ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1313 - SC ORDER
Exemption u/s 11 - charitable activity u/s 2(15) or not? - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned.
Leave granted. Pleadings be completed within four weeks.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1312 - ITAT PUNE
Taxability of gains on the sale of land - nature of land sold - reliance of evidence 7/12 extract furnished by the assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) after considering various case laws cited in the order has given a finding that the 7/12 extract furnished by the assessee indicated that the land that was sold by assessee is irrigated and cultivated and various crops were grown and the grass was also grown and utilized as animal feed. Assessee also submitted that the sales receipts of the mangoes sold in the market and since the income was more than the expenditure incurred, it was not shown in the income tax return. He has further given a finding that the position of other agricultural lands is reflected in the balance-sheet filed by the assessee.
He has further given a finding that assessee with the help cogent and reliable evidences has been able to prove that the land was used for agricultural purpose and agricultural operations were also carried out in the said land since 1993. He has further noted that the observation of AO regarding non-agricultural operations carried on the said lands was not correct in the light of the evidence 7/12 extract furnished by the assessee. Before us, the Revenue has not placed any material to controvert the findings of CIT(A) nor pointed out any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1311 - ITAT CHENNAI
Addition being the gift said to be received from her mother - genuineness of transaction and capacity of the assessee’s mother to gift - assessee’s mother appears to be housewife - HELD THAT:- For the purpose of proving a cash credit, the assessee has to necessarily establish the identity, creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transaction. In this case, the identity of the creditor is not in dispute. The genuineness of transaction was also established by filing an affidavit from the donor, namely, the assessee’s mother. At the best, the AO can doubt the creditworthiness of creditor. The assessee’s mother claims that gift was given from her past savings. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the gift because she has no independent source of income and she was not assessed to tax.
The assessee’s mother appears to be housewife. She has to take care of household expenses. Whenever received money from husband or son for household expenses, Indian ladies use to save part of the money and whenever the husband or son urgently needs some money, the ladies use to give the same out of their savings. This saving habit of housewives in this country, more particularly, in southern part of country, cannot be ignored by the AO.
When the assessee’s mother claims that she saved money given for household expenses and filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim of the assessee’s mother cannot be brushed aside so lightly without examining it. The assessment year under consideration is 2013-14. Even a mason or construction worker is receiving salary of ₹ 400 to 500 per day. In this economic situation, there is no reason to doubt the capacity of the assessee’s mother to give ₹ 5,05,000/- to the assessee. Tribunal is of the considered opinion that all the ingredients which are necessary for proving the gift were established by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition.
TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance of freight charges paid to the contractors - assessee contends that the payment was a composite one for purchase of iron ore and transportation, therefore, not liable for deduction of tax - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that the Permanent Account Number was furnished by the assessee except in respect of payment made to the extent of ₹ 44,30,887/-. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the payment made by the assessee is composite one for iron ore and transport of the same. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly restricted the disallowance at ₹ 44,30,887/-. Hence, the same is confirmed.
Addition on account of closing stock - CIT(Appeals) after considering the alternate working filed by the assessee, allowed the claim without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 clearly says that whenever additional evidence is filed by the assessee, an opportunity shall be given to the Assessing Officer to contradict the same. Since such an opportunity was not given, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has to reconsider the entire issue. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue of closing stock is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reconsider the issue in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee before him, in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Addition being the investment made in Multi Commodity Exchange - CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition without any material - HELD THAT:- When the transaction was not ascertainable in Multi Commodity Exchange by citing Permanent Account Number, it is not known how the assessee claims that someone has used her Permanent Account Number. If really PAN was misused by someone, then we have to examine who has invested the money in Multi Commodity Exchange and who enjoyed the profit of the transaction made. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition on the ground that the addition was made on surmise. Hence, the matter needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the addition of ₹ 5 lakhs is remitted back to the file of the AO - AO shall re-examine the issue in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1310 - SUPREME COURT
Registration as pharmacists - Scope of Sections 30, 31 and 32 of Pharmacy Act, 1948 - requirement of qualification as prescribed by the Education Regulations - HELD THAT:- As per Sub-section (2) of Section 32, after enactment of the Education Regulations, a person shall be entitled to have his name entered in the register only if he possesses the qualifications as prescribed by Education Regulations. Thus, the qualifications as mentioned in Section 31 would be relevant only till such time of preparation of First Register Under Section 30. In other words, the qualifications mentioned in Section 31 would be of no relevance at the time of subsequent registration Under Section 32 and after the promulgation of Education Regulations.
Whether the First Register prepared by the State of Bihar shall be deemed to be the First Register of the State of Jharkhand in view of Section 84 and 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act of 2000? - HELD THAT:- The First Register prepared and published shall be a permanent register in relation to all pharmacists in the State of Bihar. The same shall be given custody to the State Council constituted under the Section 19. A reading of Sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 30 would show that an authority appointed by the State Government to hear appeals in relations to First Register, shall decide the question of entering a new name in the register or amending the same. Such facility is available after the date appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 and before the enforcement of Education Regulations made by the Pharmacy Council of India - There is no dispute that the First Register for the erstwhile Bihar after following the procedure contemplated Under Section 30 of the Act. There is no doubt that as directed by the State Government it was duly published. Thus, there was a Statutory notification under the Section 30(4) publishing the First Register of Pharmacists for the Bihar.
The principles with reference to a law, made Under Article 3 of the Constitution of India reorganizing the existing State and the application of the laws that were in force in the parent State to the newly formed re-organized State. This would be necessary because in our considered opinion, the First Register published in Bihar before reorganization would be deemed to be the First Register of newly formed Jharkhand to the extent it contains those pharmacists who were natives of the territories that were transferred to Jharkhand - When a State as forming part of Indian nation is re-organized, in law in so far as application of laws is concerned, the following three things would happen namely; (i) the existing State (Parent State) which made various laws, would continue to exist; (ii) the new State so formed by transferring some territories will be deemed to be the territories of the parent State for the purpose of applicability of the laws; and (iii) those laws made by parent State shall continue to apply to new State until they are modified or amended by a competent legislature in relation to new State and the 'law' as defined in the definition Clause would be the law which was in force in the existing State which would be enforceable in the newly formed State.
When the First Register of Pharmacists prepared by the Registration Tribunal was published by the Government of Bihar under Sub-section (4) of Section 30, the same is conclusive and any amendments by way of inclusions can be carried out till the framing of the Education Regulations by the Pharmacy Council of India. For doing this the competent authority may take into consideration the qualifications as prescribed by Section 31 of the Act. However, after the coming into force of the Education Regulations as well as at the time of subsequent Registration, Government has to necessarily adhere to the Education Regulations. Any person who does not satisfy the qualifications as per the Education Regulations shall not be entitled to seek entry in the Pharmacy register. In that view of the matter, when the State of Bihar is precluded from preparing the First Register again, then the State of Jharkhand is equally not entitled in law to prepare the First Register again. The High court of Jharkhand therefore has come to correct conclusion in this regard.
First Register prepared by erstwhile State of Bihar is to be treated as the First Register for newly formed State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar - The First Register as prepared by the erstwhile State of Bihar is to be bifurcated based on the territorial nexus with the residential address as provided by the pharmacists at the time of registration.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1309 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, SPECIAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Approval of the Scheme of Arrangement by way of Amalgamation - sections 230-232 of Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The application is allowed on various terms.
-
2017 (7) TMI 1308 - ITAT CHENNAI
Expenditures for securing the title of the land - AO disallowed the said expenditure holding that the land was already the assessee company property would not suffice in so far as having possession of the immovable property is one thing but having a clear title more so an unencumbered title in respect of the said immovable property is what increases the value of the property - HELD THAT:- The expenditure incurred by the assessee is clearly for extinguishing third party rights and clearing of getting proper and clear title of the immovable property. This being so, as the Revenue has not been able to dislodge any of the findings of the facts as arrived at by the Ld.CIT(A), we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
............
|
