In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution and in supersession of the Income Tax Department non statutory Departmental Canteens Recruitment Rules 2004.
This article provides a synopsis of all the exceptions, modifications and adaptations made in the Companies Act, 2013 for the Private Companies. AN attempt is made to highlight the venues that can be freely transacted by private companies.
AS PER SECTION 185: No Company ( Private & Public) Directly or Indirectly Advance any loan, including book debt, to any of its directors or to any **other person in whom the director is interested Any guarantee or provide any security in connection with any loan taken by him or such other person BACKGROUND: This […]
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. ACIT that there is no human intervention involved in providing roaming services, therefore, roaming charges paid by the assessee do not amount to fee for technical services u/s 194J.
ITAT held in Pooja Industries Vs ITO that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied only because that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80IC @ 100% instead of deduction u/s 80IB. Penalty could only be levied only
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. ACIT that any loss arising to banks on account of classification of securities form one category to another category in compliance with RBI directions is an allowable expense.
ITAT Pune held In the case of ACIT vs. RDS Construction Pvt. Ltd. that on the matter of adjustment of seized cash with the self assessment tax, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) since the assessee vide letter dated 30-03-2010
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services that section 80HHC does not place any restriction to shift the claim of deduction or exemption under any other provision in respect of profits for which no deduction has been claimed and allowed in the previous year.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that a careful perusal of provisions of sec. 132(4) as well sec. 292C would show that the said provisions state that the statement taken u/s 132(4) “may be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act”.
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Waves Food Private Limited vs. DCIT held that reopening of assessment to disallow provision for damaged goods returned is not valid as the issue had been specifically dealt by AO during the course of regular assessment and such disallowance by reopening
