In order to discuss Whether entry tax imposed on gold vide Notification No. 24/2016/22(120)/XXVII(8)/2008 on dated 21.03.2016 Gold in any from brought into the State from outside the States, excluding the Gold brought for sale, in the same form or after refining or after manufacturing of jewellery from it at the rate of 0.2 percent of the value of goods is legally valid ? following provisions are relevant.
MoEF&CC has decided that licenses of import of plastic and PET scrap issued under previous Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 will be treated as legal documents. However, the import will be limited to the following four categories as on date of issue of their office memorandum:
Section 37(1): (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession
In the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in Appendix II , in Form No. 3CD, in Part-B, in clause 13, for sub-clause (d), the following shall be substituted ,namely, —(d) Whether any adjustment is required to be made to the profits or loss for complying with the provisions of income computation and disclosure standards notified under section 145(2)
Sale consideration received by the assessee is entitled to benefit under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, even though the transaction for purchase of new property was not completed and possession was also not handed over to the assessee within 2 years.
In both the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the plaint. The direction has been issued while considering the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1’s prayer for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the CPC’ henceforth) for declaration that the petitioner is in possession and title holder of the suit land and the sale deed dated 9-4-2010 purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 is null and void being forged, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. Prayer for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession has also been made in the pliant.
This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant, father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and grand-father of respondents 2 and 3. The trial Court has granted a decree of maintenance in favour of the respondents directing the appellant to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to the daughter-in-law and Rs. 1000/- each to two granddaughters who are respondents 2 and 3 herein.
This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant (for brevity ‘the husband’) to assail the legality and validity of the impugned judgement dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 208-A/2013, whereby his marriage with the respondent (for brevity ‘the wife’) has been annulled by issuing a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
A Steering Committee with the following composition is hereby constituted to oversee the whole process of the execution of ‘National Corporate Social Responsibility Award’:
AO is also equally responsible to find out whether the credit entry found on 01.07.2010 is genuine or not. The AO cannot take advantage of the ignorance or handicap of the assessee and say that there was undisclosed receipt by the assessee.
