You may also like...
restores pension for widow, 80Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana observed that the rejection order passed by the officials stated that the petitioner is the owner of two acres of land and has two sons. The order also says that the sons who are 62 and 58 years have no jobs and the land has been partitioned among the two. The petitioner is also hearing impaired and unable to do any work by herself
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 10, 2020
Tasmac challenged the constitutional validity of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act of 1961 on the premise that the legal provision “distorts federal polity” and was aimed at “unjustly” enriching the Centre, but a Bench led by Chief Justice of Madras High Court Amreshwar Pratap Sahi dismissed the writ petition. He agreed with Hema Muralikrishnan, senior standing counsel for the I-T Department, that the official concerned was in the process of assessing whether Tasmac was liable to pay tax for ₹14,574.74 crore for the assessment year 2017-18 and hence a challenge to the statutory provision could not be entertained in the present stage.
by Sekar Reporter · Published March 15, 2020