In spite of norms that not more than two attendants of a patient will be allowed to enter the hospital through the main gate itself has to be strictly implemented. This would include visitors visiting the patients during a particular visiting hours of the hospital. In other words, at any point of time, there may not be more than two attendants of a patient who can have entry in the hospital premises.
The petitioners who have filed this public interest litigation (PIL) submits that there is urgency in the matter since more than 50 patients have died on account of mass strike of resident doctors numbering about 4,500 all over the State of Maharashtra. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Association submits that they have not given […]
In this case on the applicability of VAT Rate under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 it was held by Bombay High Court that Tribunal was justified in holding that the bearings sold by the Applicant were covered by Entry C-II-146 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and not by Entry C-II102(2) as auto parts and C-II135 as tractor parts read with Entry A-35 of the Notification issued under Section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
In the present case, we find that the petitioners’ argument is that it is impossible for them to remember what was the issue and some decades back, what are the records on which it is based and how it is to be presented. Possibly all the records with them are destroyed or the units having been rearranged, it is impossible for them to retrace the records for want of staff and resources. In the circumstances, we do not think that the petitioners should be denied the relief.
A person seeking to avail the benefit of VDIS Scheme of 1997 Act must strictly satisfy its provisions as held by the Supreme Court in Hemalatha Gargya v/s. CIT 259 ITR 1. The Apex Court held that the person seeking the benefit of the Scheme of 1997 Act is bound to strictly comply with its conditions like any fiscal legislation and equitable considerations can have no place in construing it.
Having heard Mr. Pinto at some length and perusing with his assistance the order, dated 1972013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.4125/Mum/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, we are of the view that the same does not raise any substantial question of law.
It upheld the view of the Tribunal that the imposition of penalty was not justified as admission of appeal in quantum proceeding on this issue as substantial question of law was proof enough of the issue being debatable.
By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner inter alia prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus calling for the record and files in respect of the service of the Petitioner from the office of the Respondents and after perusal of the same to declare the letters dated 30th October, 2012
Assessing Officer to delete the 12% interest charged by him, on the interest free deposit received by the assessee, to determine the ALV of the rented property ignoring the well settled judicial principle that what is important is the real nature of transactions in the relied on case supra and not the facts?
In view of the fact that the Revenue has been consistently taking a view that the income earned on investments is taxable under the head capital gains no difference in facts and /or in law has been pointed out to take a different view for the subject Assessment Year
