You may also like...
-
-
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
-
justice K Kannan: While it is remarkable that HC passed compensation orders in transfer petition, I shudder to think if this must become a new practice. Passing orders on consent of counsel on WhatsApp affirmation from counsel or parties about the quantum of compensation will serve insurance co.panies well but there is a lurking danger of the parties staying completely ignorant of these orders.
by Sekar Reporter · Published May 11, 2020