It is settled law that an employee on temporary promotion would continue to hold the lien in his substantive post until it is terminated. He cannot hold two substantive posts at the same time.
1. These Writ Petitions have been preferred challenging the auction notice dated 10.6.2015 issued by the Nagar Panchayat, Bishrampur, as also for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ cases for allotment of shops in the light of earlier decision taken by the Nagar Panchayat, with further prayer for a direction to […]
The Supreme Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd. that the Calcutta High Court in Merino Ply & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT, 209 ITR 508 [1994], held that transport subsidies were inseparably connected with the business carried on by the assessee.
It is crystal clear that the terms of Section 40A(3) are not absolute and that the genuine and bonafide transactions are not taken out of the sweep and it is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the AO, the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed u/s 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused to the genuine difficulty to the payee.
It was held that in case of mandap keeper service, the catering charges (cost of buffet dinners) was not entirely excludable from the assessable value and therefore the appellant was eligible only for the benefit of abatement of 40% as per Notification No.12/2001-ST, dated 20.12.2001.
It was held that service tax is not payable on the notional interest accrued on the security deposit received on providing immovable property on rent.
Father of our Nation said: – “To deprive a man of his natural liberty and to deny to him the ordinary amenities of life is worse than starving the body; it is starvation of the soul, the dweller in the body.” “Mahatma Gandhi”
It was held that In case of amalgamation of companies appointed date as per Amalgamation Scheme is required to be taken as the date of amalgamation and not the date on which entire formalities were completed and the service provided by assessee from the appointed date to Amalgamating Company is to be considered as provided to self, in which case, no service tax liability would arise against them.
It was held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, otherwise there would be no situation for which ordinary limitation period would apply.
High Courtheld that the any action of revenue to recover taxes adopting coercive means is not permissible till the assessee’s application for stay under section 220(6) of the Act is disposed of. Further, an application for stay should be disposed off by a speaking order.
