Search Results for "monthly income assessment"

474 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 474 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Partly Allows Insurance Company's Appeal, Reduces Interest Rate in Motor Accident Claim. Claimant's compensation of Rs.19,08,550 upheld but interest reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The case arises from a motor accident that occurred on 18.06.2011 when the claimant, a pedestrian, was hit by a tanker bearing registration No. GJ-6-V...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for Lack of Failure to Disclose Material Facts. Reassessment After Four Years Invalid as Assessee Had Made Full Disclosure During Original Assessment Under Section 143(3).

The petitioner, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., challenged a notice dated 28 March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Compensation Case — Future Prospects Awardable in Permanent Disablement Cases. Loss of earning capacity must consider functional disability and actual income, not merely physical disability percentage.

The appellant, Pappu Deo Yadav, was a 20-year-old data entry operator earning ₹12,000 per month when he suffered a serious motor accident on 18.05.2...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Manufacturer in Central Excise Duty Dispute on Captive Consumption of Yarn. Court Holds That Bank Guarantees Furnished Under Interim Order Can Be Enforced Without Section 11A Notice.

The appellant, M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., was engaged in the manufacture of cotton and manmade fabrics. It claimed that the fabric manufa...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...