Chhattisgarh High Court held that Teacher of fully aided school is an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and entitled for gratuity.
Accordingly, it is held that respondent No. 1 High Court of Chhattisgarh is absolutely justified in holding respondent No. 2 to be eligible for the purpose of recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and rightly selected / appointed him on the said post {District Judge (Entry Level)} as a member of Higher Judicial Service.
Seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Sanjay Kumar Patil to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the Office of Vice Chancellor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur, Ashish Kumar Sharma – the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. held that partial exemption available under exemption notifications does not require assessee to clear the goods by way of sale only because in the notification expression “allowed to be sold”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills held that if the charging section of the Act do not provide for levy of interest on late payment of duty then the rules though made thereunder could not be enforced to levy and demand interest as such
A conjoint reading of Sections 13, 15 and 17 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 makes it amply clear that the powers of Inspectors under the said Act are not adjudicatory and the Inspectors are not authorized to undertake the exercise of adjudication of the disputes, particularly the disputes regarding application and interpretation of the Standing Orders
ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that the present issue, related to application of section 14A, especially in relation to shares held as trading assets
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of UCO Bank vs. DCIT that Sec.115JB will be applicable only where the assessee is required to show profit & loss account in accordance with schedule VI of Companies Act. As the banks are required to prepare Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account in accordance
ITAT Kolkata held In case of ACIT vs. M/s Prem Lal Jain that no addition could be made u/s 69 as the entire investments in shares made by the assessee have been duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee which are part of the seized documents
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of ICI India Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that liability towards leave encashment is a definite liability which has accrued and arisen during the year. However, payment of the same does not fall during the relevant previous year but under the mercantile system
