Delhi HC has asked Delhi government to take all necessary steps to prevent outbreak of vector-borne diseases, including dengue, chikungunya and malaria, which are caused on account of mosquito bites.
In view of the settled legal position that nomination is not a Will, and in the absence of the any Will only those persons who are legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act inherit the properties.
Section 10B(1) of the Act, gives numerous benefits to the assessees and the fourth proviso does nothing but requires compliance of the time line provided in Section 139(1) of the Act for claiming the benefit of Section 10B(1).
We note that it is an undisputed position before us that for the subject assessment year, the appellant assessee had not claimed benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of its Jetty / Port either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A).
CBDT cannot arrogate to itself, on the strength of Section 279 of the Act or the Explanation thereunder, the power to insist on a ‘pre-deposit’ of sorts of the compounding fee even without considering the application for compounding.
order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence.
When the language of Section 115WA and 115WB is clear and unambiguous and even the intention of the legislature while enacting sections 115WA and 115WB(2) is very clear i.e. with respect to the deemed fringe benefits, neither there is any scope for either literal and/ or purposive interpretation nor there is any occasion to consider the intention and for that purpose the speech of Honourable Prime Minister in the Parliament.
Amendment to Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective with effect from 1st April, 2005 as held by various High Courts.
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra of Allahabad High Court held that, wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) would not constitute sufficient ground for cancellation of registration of a dealer under UP Value Added Tax Act.
There is sufficient indication from the notes on files that the invocation of the revisionary powers under Section 74A of the DVAT Act was to delay making the refund which was overdue for over six years. The Court is left no manner of doubt is that this was plainly an abuse of power vested in the Commissioner which calls for disapproval in strongest terms.
