The plaintiffs are permitted to serve the defendant No. 9 Ashok Kumar Agarwal by text message as well as through Whatsapp as well as by email and to file affidavit of service.
In this case high court held that payment of employees contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is allowable if paid before the due date of filing Income Tax Return or filing of Income Tax Return whichever is earlier even if the same is paid after the due dates as prescribed under these Welfare Acts.
The Court finds that the standard excuse that the Department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is two-fold. The first is regarding the budgetary constraints of the Departmen
This court is of the opinion that the material found was sketchy and insufficient to warrant a fresh valuation. In any case, the AO‟s order did not even go by the valuation report, but on an entirely different footing- not based on any principle at all.
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).
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.
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.
