Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State.

3. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm registered under the provisions of Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is a contractor under the category of work contract and services. The petitioner's company was issued a notice under Section 61 of the Act on 25.10.2023 for scrutiny and assessment of the petitioner's business and the returns submitted by it.

2. Petitioner is defendant in Original Suit No.27 of 2014 (now re-numbered as Civil Suit No.06 of 2023) filed by respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital. The said suit was, thereafter, transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, on account of higher valuation of the suit property. Respondent filed the said suit for eviction against the petitioner contending that petitioner's status was that of a licensee qua the property in question and since the license has been terminated, therefore, he has no authority to continue in possession thereof. Petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in the said suit contending that the suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said application has been rejected by learned trial Court vide order dated 05.12.2023. Petitioner challenged the said order in Civil Revision No. 01 of 2024. His Revision Petition too has been dismissed by learned First Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital vide judgment dated 24.09.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.

3. Petitioner has impugned order dated 23.09.2024 issued by respondent no.2 (annexure no.4), passed under Section 271 AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1961").

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner was employed with Van Vikas Nigam, who expired while still in service on 15.01.2018 leaving behind the petitioner and other legal heirs. The death benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner to the tune of ₹24,00,000/- were transferred to the account of the petitioner. On receipt of ₹24,00,000/- in the account of the petitioner the income skipping assessment was undertaken by the respondent-Department on 11.03.2024 and a tax liability of ₹39,00,000/- inclusive of interest was imposed upon the petitioner. This order was passed under Sections 147/144/144-B of the Act of 1961. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 12.09.2024 before Joint Commissioner (Appeals).

This new document focuses on the evaluation of test methods applied to determine the physico-chemical properties of different types of nanomaterials.

Living in Montreal, I often have to create multi-lingual websites for clients. That means finding the right plugin for the job. I don’t always use WPML, but it’s one of…

The post Displaying Different Logos with WPML appeared first on bavotasan.com.

A nerdy high school competition has morphed into a nonsensical exercise in high-speed talking.