Judgements by Rajiv
View Full Profile
An application under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was filed in this court way back in 1985. It was numbered as C.P. No. 252 of 1985. It is still pending. The petitioner in that application was one Amita Sen,
HC dismissed the appeal and allow the Respondent to collect the penalty
Rajiv 09 June 2011 at 14:48
HC dismissed the appeal and allow the Respondent to collect the penalty
HC dismissed the appeal against the order of Tribunal on deduction under section 80IB
Rajiv 09 June 2011 at 14:48
HC dismissed the appeal against the order of Tribunal on deduction under section 80IB
HC dismissed the appeal and protect the order of Tribunal on reassessment under section 147
HC allow the appellant against the order of Tribunal to upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings
HC order against Appellant on the allowability of liability of interest on damage in breach of export
HC dismissed the appeal of the appellant and protect the order of Deduction under 80HHC
Rajiv 09 June 2011 at 11:56
HC dismissed the appeal of the appellant and protect the order of Deduction under 80HHC
Sections 24, 24A and 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 19
Rajiv 07 December 2010 at 15:35
The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the provisions contained in Sections 24, 24A and 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short, `the Act’) operate as a bar against the prosecution of a person who is char
Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Rajiv 15 November 2010 at 17:05
M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. (for short ‘M/s. Aurangabad EL’) are appellants in this civil appeal. They are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle Parts namely ‘Magneto Assembly’ in their factory at Aurangabad. For manufacture of their final
Rule 57F(2) and Rule 57(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1994
Rajiv 15 November 2010 at 17:01
The appellant, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No.A/75-78/WZB/06/C-II/EB dated 13.01.2006, is before us in this appeal filed u
CAclubindia
