Shri Pankaj Rathi Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) – It is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.
Amar R Shanbhag Vs ITO (Mumbai High Court)- There was inordinate delay in obtaining commencement certificate and, therefore, the petitioner once again terminated the Development Agreement dated 17th September 2004.
CIRCULAR NO. MIRSD/14/2011, DATED 2-8-2011 Market regulator the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) today approved a single-window clearance system for market entities, including stock brokers, merchant bankers and credit ratings agencies, for grant of prior approval for change in control of their management structures.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (‘Act’) is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated April 23, 2003 read with the order dated July 10, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.38(Kol) of 2002 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Dinesh B Parikh Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Admission of Additional Evidence– Whether when no application for additional evidence is made, ITAT should even then consider the additional evidence while deciding the appeal
57100 cases pending in SC; 42 lakh in HCs- Law Minister. As per latest available information, 57,179 cases were pending in the Supreme Court of India as on 30.6.11. The number of cases pending in the High Courts were 42,17,903 as on 30.9.2010. Giving his information in written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha, Shri Salman Khurshid, Minister of Law & Justice informed the House that in order to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases in courts, Government has taken a number of measures as mentioned below:
It may be stated that section 281 of the Act deals with ‘Certain transfers to be void’. In order to answer the purport of the aforesaid Circular, it will be necessary to correctly understand the scope of the provisions of section 281 of the Act. In this connection, it may be stated at the outset that the previous permission of the Assessing Officer (AO), for the impugned transactions is not required in all cases,
SEBI Circular No. CIR/MIRSD/13/2011 , – SEBI has commenced processing of investor complaints in a centralized web based complaints redress system ‘SCORES’. The salient features of this system are: Centralized database of all complaints., Online movement of complaints to the concerned intermediaries, Online upload of Action Taken Reports (ATRs) by the concerned entities, and Online viewing by investors of action on the complaints and its current status.
It is alleged that the accused while working as Chief PostMaster General, Maharashtra and Goa, Mumbai had accumulated disproportionate assets by mis-using his official position which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. He is found in possession of number of flats / plots at Bhopal, Gwalior and Faridabad. He is holding a number of accounts at various banks and post offices in his name and in the name of his family members having heavy credit balance.
Notification No. 56 /2011 – Customs (N.T.) In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 16/2011-Cus (N. T.), dated, the 1st March,2011, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 155 (E), dated the 1st March,2011, namely:-
