SC approves HC ruling – Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts ‘payable‘ as of 31st March and not to amounts already ‘paid‘ during the year
A sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for entire life of the prisoner unless the appropriate Government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or a part of the sentence under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant.
The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 232 OF 2005) vide its order dated 6.5.2014 has overruled the decision of the three-Judge bench in the case of State of A.P. v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd, reported at (2005) 3 SCC 389.
SC held that We do not find any forcible submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that once the order had been dictated in open court, the order to review or recall is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Notice via email also- MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant.
So far as the scrap is concerned, the sale proceeds from the scrap may either be shown separately in the Profit and Loss Account or may be deducted from the amount spent by the manufacturing unit on the raw material, which is steel in the case of the respondent-assessee
The Supreme Court today advocated in the case of JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI TR.PRES Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN TR.CHIEF SEC.& ORS. that judiciary should deal with iron hand the misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which is being exploited for the benefit of individuals.
The Supreme Court has held in the case of ASSO.OF UNIFIED TELE.SERV.PROV.& ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4591 OF 2014, Date of Decision 17.04.2014 that Pvt firms including telecom Companies come in CAG ambit.
In the present case, the appellant claimed for 730 days of CCL at a stretch to ensure success of her son in the forthcoming secondary/senior examinations (10th/11th standard). It is not in dispute that son was minor below 18 years of age when she applied for CCL.
