Denial of the entire expenditure incurred towards as cost of construction by AO could not be held to be justified even if assessee did not submit satisfactory bills/vouchers in support of her claim towards the cost of construction.
Hire charges of a vessel did not constitute ‘Royalty’ as it was in the nature of business income and as there was no Permanent Establishment therefore, no taxability arose on account of business income.
The Supreme Court ruling clarifies that a regional manager’s supervisory duties exclude him from being classified as a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Application for change of date of birth can be rejected on the ground of delay, particularly, when it is made at fag end of the service: Supreme Court in Barsua Iron Ore Mines Vs United Mines Mazdoor Union And Ors.
The Supreme Court ruled on the regularization of workers in the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. dispute, confirming the Tribunal’s decision for equal treatment.
Supreme Court remands VVF Ltd. wage revision case to the Tribunal, highlighting the industry-cum-region test and financial capacity as key criteria for decision-making.
Hon’ble Allahabad HC allowed the writ petitions of the respondent, wh0 are doctor, and were terminated on ground of remaining absent from the service for along time. Before that all of the respondents applied for voluntarily retirement scheme (VRS). Order of termination was passed under article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India without holding any disciplinary enquiry. HC further held that clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable.
In a recent ruling Delhi HC quashed the order cancelling the registration of CGST after considering the report of GST-Inspector who observed that he firm was in fact functioning at the registered place of business and that sufficient stocks of goods had also been maintained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that amount written-off towards non-recoverable advances given to employees which are incidental to business operations qualifies as deductible business expenses under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
Writ petitions are filed challenging the order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST by which the claim of the ownership of the petitioner on the goods detained has been rejected and the same has been passed in the name of the driver of the vehicle.
