Search Results for "Rule 147 proviso"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Enhances Child Maintenance and Grants Interim Medical Maintenance ...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...

Search Results for "Rule 147 proviso"

608 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 608 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Process Against Accused in Section 138 NI Act Case — Cheque Not Drawn on Accused's Account. Applicant cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as the cheque was drawn on the account of a proprietorship firm, not on the personal account of the accused.

12 Feb 2016

The applicant, Dr. (Mrs) Rajul Ketan Raj, was accused no.1 in three complaints filed by Reliance Capital Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Inst...

High Court

KAHC010026042017_1

9 Mar 2018

...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for Lack of Fresh Material — Assessment Reopened Beyond Four Years Without Allegation of Failure to Disclose Material Facts. Reopening Based on Change of Opinion and Audit Objection Held Invalid.

27 Nov 2013

The petitioner, M/s. Lalitha Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing chemicals with units at Tarapur and Silvasa. For A...

High Court

KAHC010068412019_1

16 Aug 2019

...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Compounding of NI Act Offence Despite Complainant's Objection. Payment of Full Cheque Amount with Interest and Costs Entitles Accused to Compounding Under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

29 Nov 2023

The applicants, who were accused in a criminal complaint filed by the respondent-company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ch...

High Court

High Court of Bombay at Goa Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for Lack of Fresh Material — Reopening Beyond Four Years Invalid as No Failure to Disclose Material Facts. The court held that the Assessing Officer cannot reopen assessment on the same material already examined during scrutiny, as it amounts to a change of opinion.

6 Mar 2018

The petitioner, Dempo Brothers Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Adjudicates upon Writ Petitions Challenging Re-Assessment Proceedings for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2007-08. Court Analyzes Whether Notices are Barred by Limitation and Whether Assessee Failed to Disclose Material Facts.

19 Dec 2023

The petitioner, EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Private Limited), a company engaged in export of software services a...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Adjudicates Writ Petitions Challenging Mandatory Pre-Deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The court examined whether the mandatory deposit requirement violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

7 Oct 2015

The High Court of Karnataka heard a batch of writ petitions filed by several assessees, including Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Prestige Garde...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice in Income Tax Case for Lack of Failure to Disclose Material Facts — Reassessment Initiated Beyond Four Years Invalid Without Proof of Non-Disclosure Under Section 147 Proviso of Income Tax Act, 1961

27 Jun 2023

The petitioner, Hindoostan Mills Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice dated 30th March 2021 issue...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for Lack of Fresh Material. Reopening Based on Change of Opinion on Already Disclosed Loan Transactions is Invalid.

24 Aug 2021

The petitioner, Jainam Investments, a partnership firm engaged in trading of shares and securities, filed its income tax return for Assessment Year 20...

5 6 7 8 9

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)