It is to be noted that while s. As per the Commissioner, the implication of the aforesaid withdrawal of facility was to pay the excise duty for each consignment by debit to the account current, i. Section 10(2) enumerates various items which are admissible as deductions, but it is well settled that they are not exhaustive of all allowances which could be made in ascertaining profits taxable under s. 10(1) imposes a charge on the profits or gains of a trade, it does not provide how those profits are to be computed.
Since this payment was made later/belatedly, the Commissioner (Excise) issued the show cause notice as to why the interest at the rate of 24% per annum should not be charged for the belated period, i. visit this backlink contention was not accepted by the Commissioner which resulted in Order-in-Original dated 13. The appellant refuted the aforesaid averment in the show cause notice with the submission that the payment through Cenvat account was also a valid payment. To arrive at the said conclusion, the appellate Bench placed reliance on Rani Sati Kerosene Supply Company and Others v.
Both by the auction-purchase of the year 1906 (D-57-D) and the sale deed (exhibit D-54 of the year 1909), Sadashiv’s moiety share in the mortgaged property, was purchased by Fulchand aforesaid. nLearned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala advances the extreme contention that Art. Lastly, it was contended that if those documents of the year 1892 are admissible to prove separation amongst the three brothers, then, oil the death of one of the three, namely, Rama, and of their mother, the entire ancestral properties including the mortgaged properties, vested in the two brothers in equal shares.
In Incometax commissioner v. It referred to paragraphs 27 and 29 of the said decision and thereafter came to hold thus:- For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we hold that the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Burdwan lawfully initiated the proceeding against the appellant/writ petitioner no. In our opinion, there is no answer to check this link right here now contention because it is clear upon a proper construction of the three mortgage-bonds and on the plaintiff’s own case that the entire ancestral properties and not only Gundi’s share, had been mortgaged.
The plaintiff, therefore, could only claim the other moiety share of her father, Gundi. The appeal will, therefore, be allowed to the extent of the half share rightly belonging to Sadashiv, and the decree for possession after online (get redirected here) redemption will be confined to the other half belonging to the plaintiff’s father. 30 (1) Confers on the minorities the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and nothing more It is also manifest that the further amendment to Section 364A in the year 1994 simply added the expressions foreign state or international inter-governmental organisation to the provision without deleting the pre-existing expression any other person.
After posing the aforesaid two questions, the Division Bench took note of the fact that the respondent-dealer was authorised to carry on the business as an agent of super kerosene oil in the district of Burdwan and the SCFS had issued a show cause to the respondent and just click the next webpage for source (Highly recommended Reading) instead of taking the final decision himself, forwarded the records to the Director of Consumer Goods for necessary action who issued a fresh show cause notice on the self-same allegations and passed a order on 22.
The reason given by the Commissioner was that since the facility to pay the central excise duty in installments given to the appellant was withdrawn under sub-rule (e) of Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for a period of two months, it was not open to the appellant to make use of Cenvat account during this period. 1 by issuing show cause notice but did not conclude the same within 30 days as required under paragraph 9 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968.
2013 which was without jurisdiction in view of the conjoint reading of the language employed in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Control Order. 2002 have a peek at this web-site [Highly recommended Reading] charging interest for delayed payment at the rate of 24% p. The Court took note of the contention of the advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants therein that the order under Paragraph 9 passed by the competent authority in writing within 30 days from the date of serving the show cause notice should mean the communication of the order in writing within the said period of 30 days and not from the signing of the order and accepted the same.
It is evident from the above that Section 364A came on the statute book initially in the year 1993 not only because kidnapping and abduction for ransom were becoming rampant and the Law Commission had Highly recommended Reading that a separate provision making the same punishable be incorporated but also because activities of terrorist organisations had acquired menacing dimensions that called for an effective legal framework to prevent such ransom situations and punish those responsible for the same.
The State of West Bengal and Others[1]. Thereafter, the Division Bench proceeded to deal with the issue whether the Director had passed the order imposing penalty within 30 days from the date of serving the show cause notice in terms of paragraph 9 of the Control Order, for the same was served on the dealer on 12. for the aforesaid period.