It is held that the petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case for interference in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India within the four corners of law and yardsticks set out by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-quoted judgements (supra) qua interference in contractual matter.
Deduction U/s. 80IB is allowable over a period of 6 years which follows that conditions for claiming deduction must remain fulfilled in all years for which deduction being claimed
To ascertain as to whether a service can be classified as Deluxe service only on the ground that the seats in the vehicle have push back or reclining facility. It appears, there is no such provision that only on such facility being available in a vehicle it can be classified as a Deluxe service
Makemytrip (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) (i) The scheme of the provisions of the Finance Act 1994 (FA), do not permit the DGCEI or for that matter the Service Tax Department (ST Department) to by-pass the procedure as set out in Section 73A (3) and (4) of the […]
A division bench of Delhi High Court held that the demand of the institute i.e., ICSI, asking students for a fee of INR 500 per subject/answer book for obtaining certified copies is not sustainable.
The appellants herein namely Sunil @ Balikaran Sahu and Amit Gupta were awarded death sentence by the trial Court after having found them guilty for offences punishable under Sections 460 (three counts), 324 (three counts), 307 (three counts), 506 Part-II (ten counts), 397 (nine counts) and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). They were sentenced to death by hanging under sub-section (5) of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’). Conviction and sentences imposed upon both the appellants are as follows: –
Delhi HC in the above cited case held that an employee cannot be restrained from competing with its former employer provided he/she is not using the confidential information of employer.
The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, which has directed the petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fees on the prayer made by him for declaring the sale deed dated 26-3-2012 executed by the respondents No. 1 to 5 in favour of the respondent No.6 as null & void and not benefiting the respondent No. 6.
Kerala High Court has held that Cross Objection filed before the Tribunal u/s 253(4) is an independent appeal and shall be adjudicated on merits even if the other party’s appeal is dismissed, for whatever reason.
HC held that since before 01.06.2015 section 234E providing for late fee for delay filling of TDS returns was not linked to / not referred under Sec 200A processing of TDS returns. As a result of this the late fee charge was invalid and illegal.
