Another reason given by the High Court was that no application was made within 180 days of application of the notification dated 27.02.1992 or even from the dateof installation of generating sets i.e.August 1995. Even if the second reason given by the High Court is ignored, nonfulfillment of condition no.(a) of notification dated 27.02.1992 clearly entailed rejection of claim under notification dated 27.02.1992.There is no foundation or basis laid down even in this appeal to assail the finding recorded by the High Court that generating set was not purchased from 01.01.1991 to 31.12.1992.
It has been noticed and found by the Amicus Curiae as well as the Special Audit Authority led by Shri Vinod Rai that Gold, Silver and other valuable artefacts and jewels of the Shri Padmanabhaswamy Temple have gone missing over the years.
One of the classic controversies, lasting for more than a decade, is disallowance for non-deduction/payment of TDS on domestic payments u/s 40a(ia).
Section 40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where the amount is payable but also when it is paid. In this behalf, one has to keep in mind the purpose with which Section 40 was enacted and that has already been noted above.
The appellant had approached this Court, aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against her for disqualification on the ground of having three children, the third child having born after the cut-off date.
Abhishek Shukla, who was discharged by the trial court in 2013 IPL spot-fixing case in July 2015, has moved the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to accept demonetised Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 currency notes with a face value of Rs. 5 lakh, which was seized by the special cell of Delhi Police during probe of the case.
Even though it is a debatable issue but as Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico (P) Ltd. (supra) had taken a view that it is capital expenditure which was subsequently followed by Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. V. CIT (supra) and the registered office of the respondent assessee being in the State of Gujarat, the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court was binding.
Dismissing the challenge against constitutionality of certain provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not mandate that in all matters concerning the appointment to various offices in in different bodies, primacy must be accorded to the opinion of the Chief Justice or his nominee.
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted relief to beleaguered Sahara Group boss Subrata Roy, but warned him that he would be sent back to jail if cheques given by him today are not realised by June 19. Sahara has given two cheques of around ₹ 2,000 cr and committed to pay ₹ 3,000 crore more by October end.
Under Section 4 of the Act, the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal are required to be appointed by the President on the recommendations of a Selection Committee consisting of- (a) the Prime Minister – Chairperson; (b) the Speaker of the House of the People – Member; (c) the Leader of Opposition in the House […]
