An Analysis of The Term Actually Incurred In Section 11(a) of Income Tax Action Act No 58 of 1962 A TECHNICAL REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BATCHELOR OF COMMERCE (HONOURS) DEGREE IN TAXATION BY
Premium Tax Taxation in the United States Foreign exchange market
COURT (KUALA LUMPUR) DECIDED-DATE-1: 7 DECEMBER 2000 FAIZA TAMBY CHIK J 2.1 Overview of the case PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHARES IN A PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NOT SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY GAINS TAX The taxpayer‚ Binastra Holding Sdn Bhd (‘the appellant’)‚ had been assessed under para 34A of Sch 2 of the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 ( ’RPGTA ’) for an amount of RM173‚000‚ inclusive of penalty by the Director General of Inland Revenue (‘DGIR’). The Appellant’s appeals had previously been dismissed
Free Tax Taxation Income
agreement was entered into between the Mills Company and the appellants appointing the appellants it’s Agents for a period of 30 years. The appellants throughout worked only as the Agents of the Mills Company and for the Fasli years 1351 and 1352 they received their remuneration under the terms of the Agency agreement. Notice was sent to the appellants to pay the amount of tax appertaining to these chargeable accounting periods. The appellants submitted their accounts and contended that the remuneration
Premium Contract Agency
Michael Anthony L. Leachon Obligation and Contracts Case Digests PNB VS CA 315 SCRA 309 FACTS: * October 23‚ 1990 Lily S. Pujol opened an account with the petitioner PNB(Mandaluyong branch.) She applied for a “combo account” under her business name “Pujol Trading.” This account is a combination of a savings and current account wherein if there are insufficient funds in the current account of the owner then the funds of the savings fund will be used. PNB thereafter‚ issued a passbook with
Premium Contract Money Trial court
Bottom of Form Bombay High Court First Appeal No.1076/20 vs Aged 26 Years‚ Occ. : Business on 6 March‚ 2012 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari 1 fa1076.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH‚ NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1076/2011 APPELLANT :- Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani‚ Aged 26 years‚ Occ. : Business‚ Proprietor M/s Dewani Soft Inc. Office situated at 303‚ 3rd Floor‚ Panjwani Market‚ Teen Nal Chowk‚ Itwari‚ Nagpur. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS:- 1. M/s Sonal Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. through
Premium Copyright Injunction Pleading
1999 dismissing a complaint filed by the appellant‚ without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case‚ but granting liberty to the appellant to "make a realistic claim" and move the State Commission or the District Forum‚ as the case may be in accordance with law. The National Consumer Forum 1 further directed that time spent before it‚ should be taken into account for purpose of computing period of limitation by the appropriate forum where the appellant moves his complaint‚ With a view to dispose
Premium Consumer protection Party ACT
4. Michigan State University vs The Assistant Controller [Intellectual Property Appellate Board] Facts: The original patent titled ‘transgenic plants producing polyhydroxyalkanoates’ with a patent application no. being 661/Del/92. The patent was granted and provided with the no.178865. Later on‚ the Patents office objected due to plurality of distinct inventions and a divisional application was filed u/s 16 of the patents act in 1996 [1699/Del/96]. Another divisional application was filed in 1996
Premium Patent Invention Patentability
appeal from the district court of New South Wales‚ concerning negligence. The appellant‚ Carey‚ was riding his bicycle through a public park before sunrise‚ which he did regularly. One morning the appellant took a path he had never cycled on before. He was injured after cycling into a bollard positioned in the middle of the path. The bollard was slightly visible as it was dark blue and the path was unlit. The appellant had crossed the path during the day‚ and had seen the bollard on numerous occasions
Premium Tort law Reasonable person Standard of care
& Anr on 31 October‚ 2001 Though in these appeals‚ principal contention involved pertains to the entitlement of the respondents herein to the benefit of the Pass Book Scheme found in paragraph 54 of the Import Export Policy introduced by the appellants herein w.e.f. 1st April‚ 1995 in relation to
Premium Civil procedure Habeas corpus Jury
of Foli v the state(1968) GLR768. In this case‚ the appellants’ made a contention that they didn’t give the deceased‚ Abla Eworho‚ a befitting burial (proper burial) because the deceased violated a custom while she was alive to which she was fully aware; that she must be purified before her death occurred‚ and that in respect to the tradition or custom‚ of which she knew about‚ that her corpse would be burned. Due to this occurrence‚ the appellants were charged before the court for causing harm to
Premium United States Poverty Indigenous Australians