Anil Ambani group today said Reliance Infra and RNRL settled the Sebi probe through voluntary terms proposed by them and the regulator did not impose any ban on the companies or their directors. “There is no bar or ban imposed by Sebi on the compa
In a case where the Assessing Officer has chosen to act in complete departure from a duly considered determination made by a superior officer, it is necessary for this Court to step in to ensure that the discipline of the hierarchy imposed by fiscal legislation is duly observed
The entitlement to shares pursuant to an award made under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is in consequence of lawful means other than by a transfer in accordance with the Articles of Association of the Company.
Demat account is essential a commercial activity done on a day to day basis and it is not expected that a private trust would bring the Gods and Goddesses in the matter of share trading business. In our view, the Respondent No. 2 has rightly rejected the prayer of the Petitioner holding that such account cannot be operated in view of the circular of the SEBI which is annexed at page 23 annexure “C”.
The connotations of expression `particulars of income’ do not extend to the issues of interpretation of law and as such making a claim, which is found to be unacceptable in law, cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income
Merely because the property was given on leave or licence for a specific purpose of running restaurant or it was given along with furniture, fixtures as well as other equipments required for running of restaurant, the same, could not change the character of rental income which is “income from house property” and the same would not become business income
We find that the A.O., CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal has only interpreted the provisions of sec. 80-IA(9) and Sec. 80HHC in a different way. As held by their Lordship, in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) that merely because the assessee has made some legal claim which has not been accepted by the A.O. that will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee. In our opinion, there is no justification to support the A.O. for levy of the penalty on the claim of the assessee u/s 80HHC, which was not accepted. We, accordingly, delete the entire penalty by cancelling the penalty order passed by the A.O.
The Assessee owned the property at No. 6, 4th floor, `Sahas’, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025. According to the Assessee the aforesaid property had all facilities of being used as a business centre. The Assessee had entered into an agreement dated 10-10-1995 (titled “Agreement for Security Deposit”) whereby the Assessee permitted M/s.
The Petitioner has an industrial unit in the district of Raigad which is a notified backward area. The Government of Maharashtra issued a package scheme of incentives in 1993 by which a scheme for the deferral of sales tax dues was announced. The Petitioner had during the period 1 May 1999 and 31 March 2000 collected an amount of Rs.1,79,68,846/ towards sales tax. Under the scheme the amount was payable in five annual installments commencing from April 2
The Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill of 2001 by which sub-section (7) of section 94 was inserted, would make it clear that the requirements that are spelt out in clauses (a),(b) and (c) were intended to be cumulative.
