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!
Notice cannot be issued when returns are pending – Notice cannot be issued unless the return which has already been filed has been disposed of – CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC); Bhagwan Das Sita Ram (HUF) v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 563 (SC).
The Stock Exchanges are advised to report to SEBI, the action taken in this regard in the Monthly/Quarterly Development Report.
In partial modification of the aforesaid Facility Notices, it is decided that all matters relating to 100% EOUs/EHTP/STPs, Customs Bonded Warehouses and other Customs related work in the jurisdiction of Mysore, which are currently under Service Tax and EOU Division, are now attached to their respective Central Excise Ranges under the jurisdiction of the concerned Divisions of Mysore Commissionerate
An application under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be made in vague terms and it cannot be used as a power to conduct a roving enquiry in these proceedings and to ascertain as to whether there is any act of misfeasance on the part of erstwhile directors.
From the proviso to Section 92C(4), it is evident that no deduction in Chapter VI-A is to be allowed in respect of the income which is enhanced after the computation of income in the said Section. Thus, the assessee is not entitled for deduction under Chapter VI-A in respect of the addition made as per the TPO’s order.
In Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma [2008] 8 SCC 321 it was reiterated that sufficient cause should be understood in pragmatic and practical manner. The test is that the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate inaction or negligence on part of the appellant.
Given the fact that the assessee had acted only as a broker and could not claim any ownership on the sum of Rs. 14.79 crores and that the receipt of the money was only for the purpose of taking demand drafts for the payment of the differential interest payable by Indian Bank and that the assessee had actually handed over the said money to the Bank,
The Board ought to have considered the date of filing of the Petition, as well as the admissions so given by the contesting Respondents, before rejecting the Company Petition in such a fashion on the ground of maintainability.
ICSI Elects CS S. N. Ananthasubramanian as PRESIDENT & CS Harish K. Vaid as VICE-PRESIDENT of the Council of the Institute Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) w.e.f. 19th January, 2013.
Explore how Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholds consistency in mobilization advance treatment, referencing an accepted accounting method and legal precedent.
