It is held that the receipts in the hands of the employees of the HPF, pursuant to the severance package announced by the Central Government and intimated vide proceedings/circular is held to be a special privilege/protection granted to the employees of the HPF Ltd and therefore, the provisions of the Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are attracted and accordingly, the same shall not fall within the definition of income, while computing the total income of concerned employee and income tax cannot be deducted from the severance package paid to the employees of HPF.
In view of law laid down by Apex Court in case of Poolpandi & Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise & Others, presence of counsel refusal during interrogation/recording the statement of a person under Customs Act would not be violative of Article 20 (3) and 21 of Constitution of India.
In Shiva Laxmi Exports Ltd Vs CIT, the division bench of the Calcutta High Court held that interest income could not said to have had accrued when the same was waived by the Company by passing a resolution. While deleting the addition made in respect of the said income, the bench clarified that such income is excludable from the levy of income tax.
Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent, waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of manufacturing base station antennas, microwave antennas, R.F. cables, jumpers and connectors and trading in related products.
Share Premium Amount collected by Company on its subscribed issued share capital is not and cannot be said to be part of capital employed in business of Company for Section 35D(3)(b)
Value of goods obtained on job-work basis cannot be included into turnover of appellants. By excluding this value items manufactured by appellants comes below limit prescribed for S.S.I. Exemption.
Provisions of the Code Code of Civil Procedure do not stricto sensu apply to industrial adjudication, even under the Code, after the Amendment Act, 1976, the normal rule is to decide all the issues together in a civil suit.
Plantiff says that there is urgency because the Defendants’ film Phillauri, alleged to be in violation of the Plaintiffs’ copyright in their 2013 Gujarati, Bhojpuri and Nepali film Mangal Phera, is slated for public theatrical release just a few day hence — this very Friday, 24th March 2017.
It is clear from the statutory provisions of the MV Act as well as the law laid down in judicial pronouncements that payments made for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law and which are not compensatory in nature cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s.37(1) read with Explanation thereto.
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 10th Jul 2012, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10.
