1. (1) These regulations may be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India(Procedure for Search and Seizure) Repeal Regulations, 2015. (2) These regulations shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. Repeal of Regulations.
Victory Aqua Farm Ltd vs ACIT (Supreme Court) The assessee has claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds by contending that these prawn ponds are tools to its business and therefore constitute ‘plant’ within the meaning of Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
It is hereby announced that the Council at its 345th Meeting held on 14th – 16th August, 2015 decided to amend the ICAI Website Guidelines, based on the recommendations of the Ethical Standards Board. The amendment has been carried out between paras 6(ix) and (7) of the Website Guidelines, and is shown in bold hereunder:-
Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vikrant Dutt Chaudhary Vs. CIT held that photocopy of a document will always constitute relevant “material” for the purpose of assessment because the very use of word material in sec 143(3) clearly shows that the AO is not bound by the technical rules of evidence
It is painful to note that in spite of various monitoring mechanisms in existence, such occurrence could not be avoided. The matter has been viewed seriously and all the adjudicating authorities are directed to pass adjudication orders within time limits as prescribed, so that the above said instance is not repeated in future.
In the case of Avinash Gupta and Ors V/s Union of India and Ors It was held by Delhi High Court that in this case it is pleaded that the petition is in the nature of public interest. However, the petition is not drafted as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
As per The Companies (CSR policy) Rules, 2014 ‘Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)’ means and includes but is not limited to: 1) Projects or programs relating to activities specified in Schedule VII to the Act or 2) Projects or programs relating to activities undertaken by the Board in pursuance of recommendations of the CSR Committee as per declared CSR policy subject to the condition that such policy covers subjects enumerated in Schedule VII of the Act.
In this case of United Shippers Ltd. Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) reopening u/s 148 was challenged by way of writ on the ground that assessment was reopened after the expiry of four years and reason recorded did not indicate any material which the petitioner has not fully and truly disclosed in the assessment proceedings.
In the case of ITO vs. M/s Besto Tradelink (P) Ltd ITAT Ahemdabad) – Assessing Officer has computed the other disallowances of interest amount and the one under section 40A(3) only on the basis of assessee’s accurate particulars already submitted on record in the course of scrutiny.
In the case of, M/s. Aidees Electronics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CCE it was held by Madras High Court that if the original authority had invoked the enhanced period of limitation on only one particular ground viz., suppression of fact and the appellate authority had set aside that finding
