Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Differing with the downgrade accorded by Moody’s, leading ratings agency Standard & Poor’s (S&P) has upgraded the Indian banking sector saying its domestic regulations are in line with international standards.
Swami Vivekanand College of Education & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court) – When Regulations 2007 were enacted, the Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 were retained. In the aforesaid circumstances by Regulation 8(5) it was clarified that if any institution has been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teachers training courses after enactment of Regulations 2005 i.e. 13th January, 2006, such institution is required to be accredited itself with NAAC with a Letter Grade B. It is needless to say that Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 dated 27th December, 2005 having retained, it was always open to NCTE to remind the institutions that they were required to follow Regulations 8(3) and 8(4), if were allowed additional intake after 13th January, 2006. For the reason aforesaid the Regulation 8(5) cannot be held to be retrospective. The second question is, thereby, answered in negative against the appellants.
BERN, Switzerland Switzerland’s financial regulator FINMA has opened probes against four Swiss banks over their handling of hundreds of millions of dollars in assets linked to the deposed leaders of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority says it examined 20 banks and found that four institutions had made mistakes warranting “enforcement […]
Sanjeev Kumar Jain Versus Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- In view of the above, the order dated 20.1.2010 of the High Court, to the extent it levies costs of Rs. 45,28,000/- on the appellant is set aside and in its place it is directed that the appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal before the High Court as per Rules plus Rs. 3000/- as exemplary costs to the respondents.
The challenges that lie before indirect tax administration and the work that is required to be done in this department are so enormous that it requires the united efforts of all members of the department of all ranks and at all places. There is no magic wand to achieve this. Each one of us has something unique, distinct in our personality that would add grandeur to the functioning of the department. We need to struggle unitedly and in a harmonious manner each one doing our bit. Let each of us think what I can do for the department rather than always looking at what is there in it for me.
The material facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The appellants, one late Harshad S. Mehta, their other family members and the corporate entities belonging to the family members had purchased more than 90 lakh shares in Apollo. Except for the holding of two family members, the entire holding came to be attached by a notification on 6th June, 1992. Under the said notification, 29 entities both individual and corporate were notified under Section 3(2) of the Special Court Act.
UOI Vs M/s Nitdip Textile Processors Pvt Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- The classification made by the legislature appears to be reasonable for the reason that the legislature has grouped two categories of assessees namely, the assessees whose dues are quantified but not paid and the assessees who are issued with the Demand and Show Cause Notice on or before a particular date, month and year. The Legislature has not extended this benefit to those persons who do not fall under this category or group.
Provided that if a limited liability partnership has closed the financial year on the 31st March, 2011, it shall file the Statement of Account and Solvency in Form 8 with the Registrar, within a period of sixty days from the end of six months of the financial year to which the Statement of Account and Solvency relates.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a Provident Fund Inspector of Guntur for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.7000/- from the complainant. The complainant, a Manager in Guntur based private firm has alleged that the Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur visited their firm on 24.10.11 and found all the registers & records in order. However, she demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for not creating any problem and initially accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.3000/- as part payment from him.
The Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) today stayed the 630 crore penalty imposed by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI) on realty major DLF over alleged abuse of dominant market position. However, the tribunal clarified in an interim order that if DLF loses its case, the company will have to deposit the entire amount […]
