Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling on Provident Fund on Thursday (28 February, 2019) states that employers can’t segregate special allowances from basic salary. It has to be included for PF deductions under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, said a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha.
Dinesh Textiles Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Supreme Court) Noting that Central Excise Rule 12B and the notification talked about ‘aggregate value’ of clearances of job worker, the Supreme Court has held that assessee manufacturing textiles through job workers would be liable once aggregate value crossed the threshold. The Apex Court […]
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Vivekananda Vidyamandir and Others (Supreme Court) Basic wage, would not ipsofacto take within its ambit the salary breakup structure to hold it liable for provident fund deductions when it was paid as special incentive or production bonus given to more meritorious workmen who put in extra output which has a […]
Gypsum boards would be taxable at 4 percent as per amended Entry 56 of Schedule IV instead of residuary Entry 1 of Schedule V at 12.5% Under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
Liability of tax was on the manufacturer for the chasis of the motor vehicles manufactured by them during the period these chasis were in their “possession”, i.e., before they were delivered to the dealers and/or the purchasers of the said vehicles as per section 6 of Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994.
Since the workmen was employed by the contractor not by assessee-BHEL and no wages were ever been paid to them by BHEL as they were in the service of the contractor, therefore, the workmen was not under the command, control, management of the BHEL and, concomitantly, the contractor had absolutely control over the workmen in performing such duties. More so, assessee-BHEL had nothing to do with the termination of services of the workmen by the contractor.
Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appears on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned counsel for the appellants is not present in the Court today. It is stated that he is out of station. This is no ground to seek adjournment. We therefore reject the request for adjournment. We have asked the learned counsel to argue the matter. He submits that he does not know anything about the case.
Thereafter, this Court has decided the matter and upheld the vires of section 139AA of the Income Tax Act. In view thereof, linkage of PAN with Aadhar is mandatory.
K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) In the present case, however, we are concerned with the provisions of I&B Code dealing with the resolution process. The dispensation provided in the I&B Code is entirely different. In terms of Section 30 of the I&B Code, the decision is taken collectively […]
Having heard learned counsels for the parties, we direct Shri Rajeev Kumar, Commissioner of Police (CP), Kolkata to appear and make himself available before the investigating agency, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) and to faithfully cooperate with the investigating agency at all times.
