High Court held that under Expenditure Tax Act 1987 chargeable expenditure would be incurred only upon raising of a composite bill upon conclusion of hotel stay and not earlier.
It cannot be denied that a bogus person should not be accepted as a surety. A person who is offering surety must have acceptable residential proof. He may be a tenant, licensee. A beggar can also stand as surety provided he should have some acceptable residential proof.
A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the section 271J of the Income Tax Act inserted vide Finance Act 2017. Madras High Court has admitted the plea and issued notice to Finance Ministry.Section 271J of Income Tax imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Chartered Accountants for each wrong certification or report.
In K.H. Shoes Ltd v. ACIT, the division bench of the Madras High Court held that the Refund of Sales Tax received by the assessee is not deductible under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act when such income has no direct nexus with his Export Business.
Maternity leave does not change with the nature of employment. It is concerned with human right of a women and the employer and the Courts are bound under the constitutional scheme guaranteeing right to life, a right to live with dignity and protect the health of both mother and child
Value of the broken bottles need not be reduced from the written down value for the purpose of calculation of short term capital gains arising from sale of bottles.
In paragraph 24 of the judgment, the trial Court has extracted the alleged confession statement of all the accused in full ignoring the bar contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act and has concluded that the accused 3 to 5 held the deceased and accused 2 attacked the deceased with a wooden rod and the first accused accused attacked the deceased with crowbar.
HC held that denial of benefit of waiver of crop loans to the farmers who had cultivated lands exceeding 5 acres is a clear discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Though, advance received by assessee company may have been for the benefit of the aforementioned registered shareholders, it could only be assessed in the hands of those registered shareholders and not in the hands of the assseeee-company.
The respective Assessing Officers, either by themselves or on instructions from the Enforcement Wing officials have stated that there is mismatch of the details, disclosed in the returns compared with the details available with the Department.
