Join our free webinar on July 4th at 4:00 PM to gain insights into the dematerialization of securities and recent amendments. Register now for key updates.
Join our free webinar on July 7 at 5 PM for insights into 10 recent High Court income tax judgments favoring assessees. Expert analysis by CA Dipak Dama.
ITAT Pune held in Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO that if the assesse had disclosed its unaccounted income filing return u/s 153A only after it was caught in search by the income tax department then that disclosed income through return would be considered as undisclosed income
It has been observed that the abridged prospectus has become voluminous and thereby defeats the very purpose of abridged prospectus.
Kerala High Court held In the case of Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala that It is well settled that show cause notices issued by statutory authorities particularly in case of imposition of penalty on an assessee, cannot pre-determine the guilt of an assessee.
CS Santosh Pandey As per the provision of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013- No Company shall directly or indirectly give loan to any of its directors or any other person in whom the director is interested, or provide any guarantee or security in connection with the loan taken by him or other person. […]
CBDT constituted Accounting Standard Committee in 2010.The committee has submitted its final report in August 2012. And on March 31st 2015 i.e. after two years, 10 Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (‘ICDS’) notified by the CBDT under section 145(2) of the income tax act 1961(the act) vide ‘notification No. 32/2015 [F.NO.134/48/2010-TPL]/SO 892(E) Dated 31 March 2015 and committee recommended the nomenclature of Tax Accounting Standards for the standards notified u/s 145(2). Since this standard are meant to be adopted for computation of income. Hence section 145(2) as amended refers to Income Computation and Disclosure Standards.
CG vide Notification No. 22/2015-Central Excise (N.T.) dated October 29, 2015 (“the Notification”) has amended the Credit Rules once again to allow use of Credit of Cess charged on Inputs, Input Services and Capital Goods received on or after June 1, 2015 for payment of output liability of Service tax on or after June 1, 2015 on similar line as was done for the manufacturers.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. that in terms of the provision u/s 275 (1) (c), there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. that the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) subsequent to 16th December 2010
Delhi High Court held In the case of Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the current case there is no reasonable scientific method adopted by the Assessee to estimate the transit breakages to justify such provision.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Universal Precision Screws that interest on fixed deposits has the requisite characteristic of business income and has a nexus to the business activities of the Assessee.
