Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Sales Tax Practitioners vs. State (Bombay High Court)

Sales Tax Practitioners vs. State (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 1, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

S. 61 of the MVAT which confers right to do audit to CAs and excludes Advocates and STPs is neither discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable and consequently not unconstitutional. Only CAs are competent to perform audit functions having regard to the expertise achieved as a result of their academic knowledge and practical experience.

Related Posts:

  • All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) The petitioner's grievance that the work of important Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should not be allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative staff is perfectly legitimate, however, we do not find any lethargy on the part of the Department in not filing up said posts. Under…
  • PCIT vs. State Bank Of India (Bombay High Court) The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had possibility…
  • K. M. Refineries and Infraspace Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Two propositions of law emerge from the above observations. Firstly, once the promise is solemnly given by the State with an intention that when acted upon, it would create a legal relation and acting on it the promisee has changed his/her position and incurred liability, the State must be held…
  • Rajendra Shah s/o. Ambalal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) In Homi Phiroz Ranina & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the complaint was filed for delay in remitting the tax deducted. The applicant has taken stand that he was non- executive Director of the company and they are also practising advocates and, therefore, they are prohibited under the…
  • Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It is a matter of deep regret that the Chief Commissioner of State Tax has attempted to justify such wrongful action on the part of the officers of the department by placing reliance upon the provisions relating to power of investigation under an earlier enactment to justify the actions of…
  • Ram Siromani Tripathi vs. State of U.P. (Supreme Court) The appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of the signed order. We make it clear that since we have not found it to be a good ground for adjournment, under no circumstances, application for restoration shall be entertained

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court) 

    Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a) … CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)…
  2. In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High Court) 

    The Sick Inndustrial Companies Act is a complete code and during the pendency of a reference, an industrial company cannot apply to the High Court for sanctioning a scheme under ss. 391 to 394 of the Companies Act. The principles … In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High…
  3. CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H High Court) (Full Bench) 

    (i) In considering whether the interest paid by an assessee on loans raised for acquisition of new asset, before the same was first put to use, is to be added towards the cost of the asset or the same is … CIT vs. Vardhaman Polytex (P & H…
  4. CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court) 

    The deletion of the second proviso to s. 43B by the Finance Act 2003 wef 1.4.2004 cannot be treated as a retrospective amendment and contributions towards PF beyond the period stipulated in s 36(1)(va) are not allowable deductions. Note: The … CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues (Bombay High Court)…
  5. Peninsula Land vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    An order passed by the AO to give consequential effect to an appeallate order of an earlier year is not an order passed under section 154 and consequently the time limit of section 154(7) does not apply. Read more ›