The Legislature, by inserting sub-clause (vi) to clause(2) of section 17 with effect from 1-4-2009, has prescribed fringe benefits or amenities which are treated to be perquisite. Rule 3(7) prescribes the amenity/benefit by way of valuation; it has the status of the benchmark; if the valuation results in a positive figure, i.e., State Bank of India rate, rate at which the employer grants loan, then it would be treated as a concession; thus, the rule lays down an express method and provides for a basis of ascertaining the value for concession.
The Appellant filed a Civil Suit upon refusal by the Second Respondent Company to register shares transferred by the First Respondent in the name of the Appellant on the ground that the signature of the transferor did not tally with the signature in the company records. The transferor did not contest the suit and the trial court passed a decree in favour of the Appellants.
Explore the legal case of M/s Goel Coal Co. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh regarding entry tax. Understand the significance of rubber seal on invoices and how the absence of such seal affects the liability of the petitioner. Read the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s order dated 7/3/2008, highlighting key legal points. Get insights into the burden of proof, implications of the Ranomal case, and the petitioner’s entitlement to the prima facie import of the absence of a rubber stamp. Stay informed about the intricacies of entry tax laws in this comprehensive legal analysis.
Explore the legal implications of extinguishment of property rights in the CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani case at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Uncover the details of the dispute, the compromise, and the tax implications. Understand the court’s ruling on whether the amount of Rs. 7,34,000 is considered a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax, as per Section 2(47) of the IT Act. Stay informed on the legal precedents cited, including the Bombay High Court decisions and the Supreme Court’s stance on property rights extinguishment.
Shorn of all details, it emerges that the assessee first filed his returns for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 showing income ranging between Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 12,000. Later action under Section 132 was taken against him which led to reopening of the assessment. A notice under Section 148 was served on him
In this case the assessee was denied exemption on the investments made with Delhi Development Authority. However, relief was granted by the Hon’ble High Court. It was held that section 54 of the Act of 1961 only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house
