|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1315 Records
-
2021 (1) TMI 1317
Taxability of unincorporated associates - principle of mutuality - Applicability of decision in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE & ORS. VERSUS M/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is dated 27.06.2019, whereas the judgment of the Supreme Court is dated 03.10.2019 and the Officer did not thus have occasion to take note of the same.
Hence impugned order of assessment dated 27.06.2019 is set aside and the matter remitted to the file of the Assessing Authority to re-done in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Club Limited.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1316
Prayer for a mandamus directing the respondent to correct GSTR statements - HELD THAT:- This request ought to have been made first before the respondent, instead of which the petitioner has directly approached this Court. Thus, this writ petition is pre-mature. The petitioner is permitted to file a representation seeking the same relief as sought here and pursue the same.
Writ petition is dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1315
Claim of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act - HELD THAT:- The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence.
The object of Section 397 CrPC is to settle a patent defect or an error in exercising jurisdiction or if the order is perverse and no court would come to such a conclusion. The orders have been passed in an application for interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Matrimonial proceedings are still pending between the parties. The findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as upheld by the learned Sessions Court is that the petitioner was not providing adequate maintenance to the respondent and since the adequate maintenance was not being paid, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards maintenance.
The Company which was being run by the petitioner did not release her salary. The respondent had to move the court and fight for getting her legitimate salary. It is not in dispute that Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. company was being run by the petitioner. After denying the respondent her salary, the petitioner is now trying to take advantage of his own wrong by stating that now since the respondent has got her salary and therefore, the order of maintenance should be modified. Even though the company is distinct from the petitioner but the company is being run by the petitioner and it can be assumed that the salary was not being paid to the respondent only at the instance of the petitioner.
This court does not want to substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the court below. It is open to the petitioner to raise all these contentions in the matrimonial proceedings pending between the husband and wife while deciding the issue of grant of alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1314
Classification of services - facilitation service by appointing a facilitation manager to supervise and manage the management and maintenance of immoveable property - whether classified under ‘Real Estate Agent Services’ or ‘Real Estate Consultant Services’? - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1313
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT inadequate inquiries were made by AO on payments made to players on winnings from lotteries/crossword puzzles and taxes to be withheld thereon - As argued inadequate inquiries were made by the learned AO on payments made to players on winnings from lotteries/crossword puzzles and taxes to be withheld thereon - HELD THAT:- It has been settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachhan [2016 (5) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT] that such an action is permissible to the Commissioner provided sufficient opportunity is given to the assessee.
From the records available before us and the order of learned Commissioner, it is not discernable whether proper opportunity in this regard was given to the assessee. Now, the issue is whether this is fatal to the order of revision ? Another concomitant issue is when the learned Commissioner has not given the opportunity to the assessee and has consequently not examined the assessee’s response, should the Tribunal fill-in the gap and give a finding that the Assessing Officer has duly examined the issue on the basis of document said to have been filed before Assessing Officer.
When the CIT has not examined the issue, the Tribunal should not jump ahead and examine the issue merely on the basis of document said to have been filed before the Assessing Officer without any indication as to whether the Assessing Officer has verified the correctness of the averments. That merely keeping the document on record, without carrying out necessary investigation which are per se required to verify correctness of the averment would lead to an error, in the sense that he has failed to carry out the requisite inquiry which can be rectified in revision.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this order of Commissioner is liable to be set aside to his file for fresh consideration as directed to examine the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.
In giving the above said direction we draw support from the decision of Kapurchand Shrimal [1981 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] for the proposition that it is the duty of the appellate authority to correct the errors in the orders of the authorities below and/or remit the matter for reconsideration unless prohibited by law. In this regard, we note that there is no provision in law prohibiting us to remit the matter back to the learned Commissioner on the facts and circumstances of the case.
In our considered opinion, the above submission of the assessee’s counsel is not sustainable. We do not find that the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, by any stretch of imagination, proposes that matters cannot be remanded by the ITAT to the level of Commissioner of income tax. Hence, this limb of argument of the learned counsel of the assessee is rejected.
Thus we set aside this order passed under Section 263 to the file of the learned Commissione to decide the issue afresh giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1312
Suspension for misconduct - misappropriation of bank's money by affording fake credits in his various accounts - HELD THAT:- The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts Under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.
It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the Rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
In the case on hand, the charge-sheet was served upon the Respondent delinquent for misappropriation of public funds by affording fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the branch where he was serving (Mumfordganj Branch) during the relevant period. In all, 7 charges were levelled against him of grave misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his official duty and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent delinquent and due compliance of the principles of natural justice, the enquiry officer in his report while dealing with the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent delinquent specifically indicated that the details of enquiry report contained 22 pages along with documents produced by the presenting officer marked as PEX-1 to PEX-28 to establish the allegations/charges levelled against the Respondent delinquent who neither produced any document nor witness in his defence.
In the case on hand, the disciplinary/appellate authority was not supposed to pass a judgment however while passing the order dated 24th July, 1999, the disciplinary authority had taken note of the record of enquiry, including self-contained enquiry report dated 22nd May, 1999 and his prima facie opinion dated 29th June, 1999 which was made available to the Respondent employee and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and meeting out the written objections raised by the delinquent, expressed its brief reasons in upholding the finding of guilt and penalty of dismissal by its order dated 24th July, 1999 - the finding recorded by the High Court under its impugned judgment setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority, cannot be accepted, which deserves to be set aside.
The appeals deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court impugned dated 13th September, 2018 is hereby set aside.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1311
Validity of reassessment orders at Anenxures-A1, A2 and A3 - seeking for quashing the demand notices at AnenxuresB1, B2 and B3 issued pursuant to the orders at AnenxuresA1, A2 and A3 - HELD THAT:- Having perused the endorsements which are not speaking orders and also deeming it necessary that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before any orders are passed under Anenxures-N1, N2 and N3, endorsements at Anenxures-C1, C2 and C3 are set aside and the matters are remitted for fresh consideration on Anenxures-N1, N2 and N3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal would be filed as against the reassessment orders at Anenxures-A1, A2 and A3. However, till the disposal of the rectification applications at Anenxures-N1, N2 and N3, the respondent - Authority not to precipitate the demands raised as per the impugned demand notices at AnenxuresB1, B2 and B3.
Petition disposed off
-
2021 (1) TMI 1310
Constitutionality of provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in tJINDAL STAINLESS LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [2016 (11) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURT] has settled the issue. Therefore, nothing survives fur further consideration in this writ petition.
Petition closed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1309
Service tax on Ocean Freight - what is “CIF”, and how the CIF is different from the FOB contracts - HELD THAT:- Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1308
Failure of the Appellant-M/s. Esjayee Impex Pvt. Ltd. to repay a Loan to Canara Bank and the consequent proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 - handing over possession of Secured Assets to Canara Bank in respect of an immovable property - HELD THAT:- The aspect of possession by the Auction Purchaser was already taken care of by our Order, dated 11.9.2020 recording that possession was handed over to the Auction Purchaser in pursuance to a Letter, dated 6.11.2019 but the backside portion was being used to store goods of the original Owners preventing full enjoyment of the property - It is also noticed that in case the Auction Purchaser was to continue to enjoy the property and the Petitioner(s) defaulted, one week's time would be granted to remove what has been stored in the back portion. Thus, the Bank will ensure that those Goods are removed within one week from today to facilitate unhindered enjoyment of the possession by the Auction Purchaser.
Learned Counsel for the Bank agreed that the Sale Certificate has to be further validated and assured that the needful will be done within two weeks. However, a submission was made that the Sale Certificate was then to be handed over to the Registering Authority for registration and payment of Stamp Duty.
The mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the Authorised Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated Sale Certificate to the Auction Purchaser with a copy forwarded to the Registering Authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act - SLP dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1307
Contempt petition - handing over of the records etc. by the Resolution Professional has been complied with - HELD THAT:- Nothing survives for consideration in this Contempt Case. Proceedings are accordingly dropped.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1306
Implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (PWM Rules), including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules - HELD THAT:- Regretfully, steps taken by the MoEF for finalizing EPR regime are too slow. We note that the PWM Rules were framed in the year 2016 in place of 2011 Rules. There is no justification for long delay in finalisation of EPR models even after more than four years of the publication of the Rules. The same may now be finalised at the earliest, preferably within three months from today.
The State level authorities also need to take necessary effective steps for enforcement, including coercive measures. EC and penal action regime proposed by the CPCB may be duly implemented by the CPCB, State PCBs/PCCs, State Level Monitoring Committees and all other concerned authorities. District Environment Committees constituted in pursuance of order of this Tribunal in Shailesh Singh vs. Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur & Ors. may also monitor compliance of PWM Rules and give their respective reports to the State Level Committees.
The CPCB may continue to coordinate with the State Level Monitoring Committees, the State PCBs/PCCs or any other authorities with reference to the steps taken by the State Level Monitoring Committees in coordinating with the concerned Local Bodies, Gram Panchayats, Waste Generators, Producers, Importers, Brand Owners, Recyclers, Manufactures, Retailers and Street Vendors in accordance with the rules. Whenever, necessary CPCB may issue further directions from time to time in the light of experiences gained considering different suggestions and viewpoints, including the suggestions of the Oversight Committee for State of UP.
The application is disposed of.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1305
Imposition of anti-dumping duty on the import of the good Flexible Slabstock Polyol from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - methodology used for arriving at the figures of normal value, export price and landed value, was not informed to the petitioner - insufficient time provided by the Designated Authority to file comments under disclosure statement.
Two petitions filed now - in both the petitions the challenge is to the final findings dated 01.09.2020 of the Designated Authority, where it was concluded that that the product under consideration has been exported to India from the subject countries below its normal value, thus resulting in dumping.
HELD THAT:- Having surveyed the statutory framework as above, we may now advert to the impugned final findings dated 01.09.2020. In the introductory portion of the final findings, it is mentioned that Manali Petrochemicals had filed an application before the Designated Authority under the Act read with the Anti-dumping Duty Rules for imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imports of Flexible Slabstock Polyol from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. On the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by Manali Petrochemicals, a public notice dated 18.09.2019 was published in the Gazette of India initiating the investigation. While detailing the procedure followed in the investigation, it is mentioned that the period of investigation was from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 (12 months) though the injury investigation period covered three years i.e., 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017- 18 plus the period of investigation. Designated Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers / exporters and to the governments of the subject countries.
Interestingly, while the name of Dow Chemical as the importer of the subject good has been mentioned, there is no mention about Expanded Polymer Systems as an interested party. However, there is acknowledgment that submissions were received from Indian Polyurethane Association. It further mentions that an oral hearing had taken place on 04.03.2020 but another oral hearing was held on 15.07.2020 in view of change of the Designated Authority. It is also stated that the essential facts of the investigation were disclosed to the known interested parties vide the disclosure statement dated 21.08.2020.
Claim of confidentiality - HELD THAT:- The Designated Authority held that on being satisfied he had accepted confidentiality claims wherever warranted and accordingly those were not disclosed to other interested parties. However, he has stated that wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.
Normal value, export price and determination of dumping margin - HELD THAT:- It is stated that Designated Authority considered the views of the domestic industry and of the interested parties whereafter normal value, export price and dumping margin were determined and disclosed in the form of a table. Designated Authority observed that the dumping margins are more than the de minimis limits.
After an analysis of various aspects including factors affecting domestic prices, magnitude of injury margin, etc., Designated Authority noted that the injury margin is positive and significant for co-operating producer and subject countries for the period of investigation.
The law is well settled that be it a quasi-judicial or an administrative body, if any decision making affects the rights of a party, principles of natural justice have to be followed. Even in those cases where the statutes are silent, courts have read into those statutes the need and requirement for adhering to the principles of natural justice to ensure that the decision making process is just, fair and reasonable.
Section 9C of the Act, which we have already extracted above, gives right to an aggrieved party to file appeal before the CESTAT under section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order of determination of dumping in relation to import of any article. Sub- section (2) thereof is illustrative. It says that such an appeal shall be filed within 90 days of the date of order under appeal, though extendable if the appellant satisfies the CESTAT that it was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Admittedly, in both the petitions the challenge is to the final findings dated 01.09.2020 of the Designated Authority. As per the final findings, Designated Authority has concluded that the product under consideration has been exported to India from the subject countries below its normal value, thus resulting in dumping. Domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumping and the material injury has been caused by the dumped imports - Stricto sensu, the final findings of the Designated Authority is a recommendation. Such a recommendation cannot be construed to be an order for the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 9C of the Act. It will become an order only upon acceptance of the recommendation of the Designated Authority by the central government and upon issuance of consequential notification. It is from such date that the period of limitation for filing appeal would commence. Prior to issuance of such notification by the central government, the final findings of the Designated Authority would remain a recommendation which cannot be construed to be an order.
Thus, filing of the two writ petitions at this stage appears to be premature. Respondent No. 2 is yet to take a decision on the impugned findings. Certainly, respondent No. 2 will have to apply its own independent mind taking into consideration relevant factors and thereafter take a decision on the recommendations one way or the other. Needless to say, representations submitted by the parties including the one submitted by Indian Polyurethane Association on 28.09.2020 shall be considered by respondent No. 2 before taking such decision.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1304
Seeking grant of bail - Principles of parity - as per the FIR, the petitioner Kalyan Singh was allegedly armed with a knife but it is apparent from the injury reports of the injured Om Prakash and Thakara Ram that no injury whatsoever was caused to anyone by a sharp weapon - HELD THAT:- As per Section 439 Cr.PC., the Sessions Court as well as the High Court while considering the bail application/s of arrested accused have concurrent jurisdiction. Needless to say that while considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons, parity has to be maintained and it should be ensured that unless any distinguishable feature or any special circumstance is in existence, the bail of a subsequently arrested accused on same footing should not be dismissed when other/s with similar allegation/s have been extended indulgence of bail.
In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioners by order dated 23.12.2020, referred to his own order dated 05.09.2020 whereby, the bail application of Swaroop Singh was rejected. However, the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by this Court whereby, Swaroop Singh whose case stands on the same footing as the petitioners, was admitted to bail was conveniently omitted. This indicates the gross disregard of this Court’s order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Barmer.
The approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in denying bail to the petitioners even though similarly situated accused has been granted bail in the very same case is deprecated as such an approach not only tantamounts to a total disregard of this Court’s order but also increases this Court’s dockets flooding it with unwarranted bail applications and also prolongs the custody of the accused without any justification. It is henceforth expected from all the Subordinate Courts in the State of Rajasthan that where similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by this Court and the bail application of other accused comes up for consideration, this Court’s order/s shall not only be referred to while deciding such bail application/s but shall be followed unless exceptional/distinguishable features exist.
It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely Khet Singh S/o Lal Singh and Kalyan Singh S/o Lal Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.221/2020, Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer shall be released on bail, subject to the compliance with the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1303
Denial of revival of petition by invoking Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 - non-compliance with the settlement terms - HELD THAT:- It appears that the Terms of Settlement providing a repayment schedule was incorporated in the order thereby making it an order/ decree of the Court and once this was the position, giving liberty to the Financial Creditor to come back can be interpreted on no hypothesis other than that the revival of CIRP would be sought for non-compliance with the Terms of Settlement. Therefore, even on merit, there are no substance in the instant appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1302
Cognizance/summoning order u/s 276C (2) r.w.s. 278E of I.T.Act - application u/s 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the Criminal Complaint - HELD THAT:- As applicant submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers made in this application. He is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seek bail and accept all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is for expeditious disposal of his bail application.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order, stands refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. [2004 (10) TMI 635 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. [2009 (3) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT]
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of
-
2021 (1) TMI 1301
Adjudication not finalised even after lapse of more than 10 years - Denial of CENVAT Credit - recovery of rebate claim - petitioner purchased their raw material from J & K based manufacturer who did not purchase any crude Mentha oil from the farmers - HELD THAT:- The present petition stands allowed in terms of decision in the case of SHREE BALAJI AROMATICS PVT. LTD., HINDUSTAN MINT AND AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, CHANDIGARH. [2021 (1) TMI 1300 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that The show cause notices having been issued long back more than a decade are not sustainable in the eyes of law, and thus, deserve to be quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1300
Adjudication not finalised even after lapse of more than 10 years - Denial of CENVAT Credit - recovery of rebate claim - petitioner purchased their raw material from J & K based manufacturer who did not purchase any crude Mentha oil from the farmers - HELD THAT:- The decision in the case of M/S MENTHA & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SATYA NARAIAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICE TAX, CHANDIGARH AND M/S ARORA AROMATICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2020 (12) TMI 1230 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] would cover the case of the petitioners in their favour, where it was held that The show cause notices having been issued long back more than a decade are not sustainable in the eyes of law, and thus, deserve to be quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1299
Summon by Additional District Judge under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - concealment of not placing the order on record - HELD THAT:- The principles for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by Criminal Court are well settled. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others, [2014 (1) TMI 1819 - SUPREME COURT], has elaborately considered all contours of Section 319 Cr.P.C. This Court has held that Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extra-ordinary power which has to be exercised sparingly. This Court further held that the test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
A perusal of the judgment of the High Court indicates that the High Court did not examine the correctness of the order dated 17.08.2019 by which the appellants were summoned by Additional District Judge under Section 319 Cr.P.C., rather has dismissed the Criminal Revision on basis of a subsequent fact i.e. order dated 18.09.2019 by which notice has been issued under Section 446 Cr.P.C. The High Court further took the view that since the proceedings in pursuance of Section 319 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated and that no simultaneous challenge to the impugned order dated 17.08.2019 summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be tenable before the High Court till the order dated 18.09.2019 passed in proceedings at the behest of revisionist subsist.
The order dated 18.09.2019 by which the Court has directed appearance of the accused appellant is to be taken to its logical end but that order cannot provide a shield of protection to earlier order dated 17.08.2019 by which appellant has been summoned.
The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27.09.2019 is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1298
Exemption u/s 11 - denying the benefits of Section 11 and 12 by invoking proviso to Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) - accumulation of 15% - deduction in the fixed assets - HELD THAT:- All the three questions, referred to above, as proposed by the Revenue are no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this High Court rendered [2020 (8) TMI 600 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
This tax appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
........
|
