So long as compensation has been directed to be paid, albeit under Section 357(3), Section 431, Section 70 IPC and Section 421(1) proviso would make it clear that by a legal fiction, even though a default sentence has been suffered, yet, compensation would be recoverable in the manner provided under Section 421(1).
Issue 1: Whether provision for unspent Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure is required to be made as per Ind AS? Response: Paragraph 14 of Ind AS 37, Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets states:
It cannot be denied that a bogus person should not be accepted as a surety. A person who is offering surety must have acceptable residential proof. He may be a tenant, licensee. A beggar can also stand as surety provided he should have some acceptable residential proof.
Appellant/Assessee is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of clinker and cement falling under Chapter heading 25 of the CE Tariff Act, 1985. Between 16th July, 1997 and 30th September, 1999, the Appellant received ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service’ from various services providers.
Section 254 does not indicate that Tribunal can recall entire order and pass a fresh decision and power to rectify a mistake under section 254(2) could not be used for recalling entire order.
One of the clarifications issued by the Ministry stated that the enhanced maternity benefit, as modified by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) bill, 2016 can be extended to women who are already under maternity leave at the time of enforcement of this Amendment Act.
National Electronic Funds Transfer (NEFT) system presently settles the fund transfer requests of the participating banks on net basis at hourly intervals from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm on all working days.
Implementation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 27th Oct 2015 in Civil Application No. 554 of 2006 with regard to recovery of Duty Free Credit Entitlement (DFCE) Scheme Scrips for the exports made in the year 2003- 04.
The Notification No.08 (RE 2006)/2004-2009 dated 12th June 2006 and Notification No. 20 (RE 2006)/2004-2009 dated 13th July 2006 are hereby rescinded ab-initio. The Target Plus Scheme is implemented as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.10.2015 in CA No.554 of 2006.
Implementation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 27th Oct 2015 in Civil Application No. 554 of 2006 with regard to Target Plus Scheme (TPS) Scrips for the exports made in the year 2005-06 over 2004-05
