Medical Treatment for Bed sorse . Which no body knows. Almost all die very badly. Try to circulate this information ,as many as you know world over.
God bless you,
Shah D J
1. patient has to be taken care every day.
2. turn patient and wash wound every day
3.wipe with dettol /spirit
4.put soframycin ointment on wound and surrounding area
5.on that put nebasulf powder so that wound will be dry and wound would be soothed , Repeat the same treatment till every time Soframycin , nebasulf mixture gets dry, may be 4 to 5 times a day. till wound gets completely heal.NEBASULF ; Powder, Pfizer Ltd - Dawabazar.in6.keep it open for air so wound gets dry and heal soon, wound should be covered with mosquito net from all bees and insects
7 every day patient not allowed to sleep on wound side but can sleep other sides only
8. when once wound heals well patient allowed to sleep on that side minimum one wk after complete healed
9.take antibiotics as advised by surgeon, if any. I had not given any medicines , Antibiotic at all.
10.above said nursing care is very essential
this is based on personal experience and treated relative ( my Mother in law ) who was cured fully within 15 days and her life was extended by 10 years. Died some 14 years back. 2. turn patient and wash wound every day
3.wipe with dettol /spirit
4.put soframycin ointment on wound and surrounding area
5.on that put nebasulf powder so that wound will be dry and wound would be soothed , Repeat the same treatment till every time Soframycin , nebasulf mixture gets dry, may be 4 to 5 times a day. till wound gets completely heal.NEBASULF ; Powder, Pfizer Ltd - Dawabazar.in6.keep it open for air so wound gets dry and heal soon, wound should be covered with mosquito net from all bees and insects
7 every day patient not allowed to sleep on wound side but can sleep other sides only
8. when once wound heals well patient allowed to sleep on that side minimum one wk after complete healed
9.take antibiotics as advised by surgeon, if any. I had not given any medicines , Antibiotic at all.
10.above said nursing care is very essential
This is based on my very personal treatment given under my supervision. This may save life of some one for further more. Normally such people 99 .99 % die in bed ...... God save him/her/
CA Shah D J
SC judge defends mandatory CSR; Insider trading norms 'draconian': Biocon Chief
SC judge defends mandatory CSR; Insider trading norms 'draconian': Biocon Chief
SC: Dismisses Govt. SLP against Madras HC ruling invalidating IPAB selection mechanism
SC dismisses Govt.'s SLP, affirms Madras HC order that had struck down as unconstitutional, critical provisions of Trade Marks Act relating to establishment of Intellectual Property Appellate Board ('IPAB') ; HC had ruled as invalid, certain provisions of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for selection of Indian govt. officers as judicial members of IPAB; HC had also held that any committee constituted to select members for IPAB ought to be pre-dominantly comprised of judges or those with requisite judicial qualifications: SC. SLP was dismissed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice N.V. Ramana. Senior Advocates Arvind Datar, Vineet Subramani, Liz Mathew, Sai Vinod and Prashant Reddy appeared on behalf of the Respondent. (Source: SpicyIP.com)
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX REPORTS (GSTR) HIGHLIGHTS
F Car air-conditioning kit and compressor sold in a singular invoice or in one pricing, fall outside ambit of entry 8 and duty to be paid separately, but if two invoices for separate pricing then kit to come under entry 8 and automotive gas compressor with or without magnetic clutch liable to duty separately : CCE v. Sandan Vikas (I) Ltd . p. 366
F Kindle device, electrical machine with translation or dictionary functions covered by Heading 8543 70 99 and entitled to exemption : Amazon Seller Services P. Ltd., In re p. 342
F Suppression of material facts as well as contravention of Act and Rules with intent to evade duty, extended period of limitation rightly invoked : Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Rathi Steel and Power Ltd. (All) p. 357
F Where statement made under section 108 retracted, no reason for detention of goods : Neelam Imports v. Union of India (Delhi) p. 383
F Benefit of reduced penalty available on payment made within 30 days of communication of order levying penalty and not from date of issuance of show-cause notice : CCE v. Lucky Plast Ltd. (Raj) p. 387
F Where no action taken pursuant to show-cause notice for earlier periods, second notice based on same facts cannot be issued invoking extended period of limitation : CCE v. Shanker Products (Raj) p. 391
F Investigation by designated authority can be suspended till revived by ex post facto extension within overall period of eighteen months : Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) p. 396
F Designated authority cannot ignore principles of natural justice on ground of paucity of time : Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) p. 396
F Appellate court cannot review factual findings of designated authority based on evidence but only to correct order where based on irrelevant or manifestly incorrect construction of facts or misappreciation of law or non-application of mind : Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority (Trib.-Delhi) [LB] p. 345
F Existence of "possibility" does not necessarily mean existence of "likelihood" : Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority (Trib.-Delhi) [LB] p. 345
F Notifications :
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 : Notification under section 3 : Import Policy of fuels for ship breaking : Amendments p. 109
Import Policy of urea : Amendments p. 106
Two new ports for import of new vehicles : Amendments p. 102
Notification under section 5 : Export Policy of onions : Amendments p. 103
Export Policy of sugar : Amendments p. 104
Extension for export of red sanders wood : Amendments p. 108
Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 : Amendments p. 110
Withdrawal of duty free import authorisation (DFIA) scheme for import of raw sugar : Amendments p. 107
Notification under sections 5 and 14A : Updation of SCOMET list : Amendments p. 98
| COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD. No. 2, Vaithyaram Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017. Phone: (044) 24350752 - 55 Fax: (044) 24322015 info@cliofindia.com |
To Unsubscribe : Reply back with "Unsubscribe" in subject followed by the key word "ITR" or "CC" or "VST" or "ITR (Trib)" or "GSTR", respectively or "All" if you do not want any Email. ITR : Income Tax Reports, CC : Company Cases, VST : VAT and Service Tax Cases, GSTR : Goods and Service Tax Reports, ITR (Trib) : ITR'S Tribunal Tax Reports. Also send your feedback or comments to info@cliofindia.com
Detailed trial imperative for register rectification with controversial facts; Civil Court appropriate forum
CLB disposes co. petition filed u/s 111A of Cos. Act, 1956 for rectification of register of members, states that where there is involvement of complicated and controversial questions of facts, examination / cross-examination of different persons / witnesses, a detailed trial is imperative, directs parties to approach Civil Court; Notes the facts that petitioner was shareholder of erstwhile Jindal Strips Limited and upon demerger, petitioner was entitled to get certain shares of respondent Co. as per High Court approved scheme, however respondent co. received duly executed transfer deeds which were given effect; Observes that petitioner has taken unreasonable time of 5-years to file police complaint for share certificate loss and it took further 3-years to write to respondent co. to 'stop transfer' of shares; States "suspicion arises as to why the shares were in transferred in September 1999, when the circular of July 1999 was sent to the registered shareholders to surrender the original share certificates for obtaining share certificates of demerged entities"; Relies on SC ruling in case of Ammonia Plastics Corporation Vs. Modern Plastics Container:New Delhi CLB
Directs removal of directors' re-appointment documents from MCA portal, fraudulently filed, 'misleading'
CLB allows Sec. 397/398 petition, directs ROC to remove Form 32, fraudulently filed for re-appointment of respondent directors on the board of PAN India Motors (respondent co.); Observes that respondent directors were removed from directorship for failure to disclose their interests u/s 299 of Companies Act, 1956, however, they invalidly convened a meeting and re-appointed themselves as directors and forged petitioner-director's digital signature certificate, fraudulently filed Form 32 before RoC; Thus, holds that it would be unjust & improper if such fabricated documents are displayed on MCA portal, as public at large may be misguided, misled and defrauded; Rejects respondents' challenge to maintainability of the application that since interim reliefs sought for by petitioner were not allowed earlier by CLB, issues could not be re-agitated, terms it as 'meaningless', as such issues were not raised then before CLB; Further rejects respondents' objection that application was filed after 2 years of delay, observes that since respondents acted to the detriment of the co., question of delay did not arise; Relies on Queen Bench Division ruling in Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beasley & SC ruling in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath to hold that where a fraud was pleaded and proved, technical objections had no substance:Mumbai CLB
Cancels allotment on conversion of non-existent loan; Orders members' register rectification
CLB allows company petition filed u/s 111 of the Cos. Act, 1956, orders rectification of register of members for illegal preferential allotment made by respondent company to promoter group (individuals / company); Observes that allotment was made without approval of members and Central Government as contemplated u/s 81 of Cos. Act, 1956, SEBI Takeover Code & ICDR Regulations; Notes that no loan was proved against the allotment as Respondent Co.'s bank statement was never presented before CLB, and states that cancellation of allotment will not tantamount to reduction of share capital u/s 100 of Cos. Act, 1956; Peruses Annual Report of respondent company and 'lending company', observes that there is no mention of liability owning or borrowing, accordingly cancels the allotment and grants extension of 6 months for holding Annual General Meetings and for filing annual accounts:New Delhi CLB
MUMBAI, JULY 27, 2015: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether if during search operation in assessee's premises, a locker key of another assessee was seized, the market value of jewellery stored in such locker is to be added in the income of searched assessee as deemed income. YES is the answer.
Facts of the case
The assessee is an individual. On 19 March 1986, a search action u/s 132 was carried out by the revenue in respect of the appellant's premises. During the course of the search, a locker key belonging to one Mrs. Sujata Malani was seized, who at the relevant time was staying with the assessee. On 28 July 1986, the locker of Mrs. Malani (the key to which was seized on 20 March 1986) was opened by the revenue. On opening the locker, jewellery valued in the aggregate of Rs.2.53 lakh was found therein. In the course of proceedings u/s 132(5), the revenue accepted the explanation of Mrs. Malani that jewellery valued at Rs2.41 lakh out of Rs.2.53 lakh belonged to the assessee. AO had not accepted the assessee's explanation of source of the jewellery found in Mrs. Malani's locker as being a gift received from Mrs. Shashikala L. Dhoot. Consequently, AO added the cost of the jewellery which as deemed income u/s 69A. On appeal, CIT(A) did not interferes with the order of AO. On further appeal, Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and had not accepted the contention that as the locker key belonging to Mrs. Malani had been seized on 20 March 1986, the addition of deemed income u/s 69A to be made on account of jewellery found on opening of the locker on 28 July 1986 can only be in the AY 1986-87 and not for the AY 1987-88. Tribunal further held that in terms of Section 69A, the financial year in which an assessee was found to be owner of any jewellery and for which no sufficient explanation was offered, then the value of such jewellery can be deemed to be income of the assessee in such financial year in which the jewellery was found.
Held that,
++ the locker key which was seized by the department during the course of the search on 20 March 1986, did not belong to the appellant. Thus on that date the quantum of jewellery in the locker of Mrs. Malani which belonged to the appellant could not be ascertained/forecast. The normal presumption would be the jewellery in the locker of Mrs. Malani would belong to her and not to another person. Therefore, it is only on opening of the locker of Mrs. Malani on 28 July 1986, did the revenue find the jewellery and also that some part thereof, belonged to the appellant as claimed by the appellant and as also declared by Mrs. Malani in her assessment proceedings as recorded in the order of her Assessing Officer at Kolkata on 25 November 1986. Thus it is only in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1987-88 i.e. financial year 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 that the appellant was found to be the owner of the jewellery in the locker belonging to Mrs. Malani. In view of the above, so far as the first question is concerned, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal and the same is answered in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee;
++ at no point of time, the jewellery found in the locker was sourced from the cash received by the appellant from M/s Industrial Meters Ltd. The case of the appellant has always been the jewellery found in the locker was a gift received by him on 27 January 1986 from his aunt. This theory of gift being received from his aunt was not accepted by the authorities under the Act including the Tribunal. Thus the deemed income being the cost of jewellery found in the locker of Mr. Malani being assessed to tax in Assessment Year 1987-88 cannot be found fault with. In the circumstances, the second question as framed has to be answered in negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the appellant-assessee. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
(See 2015-TIOL-1675-HC-MUM-IT)
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment