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!
Raising Capital is the key to scale up the operations of the business & for expansion. Here is the solution, how start up has to do compliance procedures while raising funds for the business. Below is the detailed procedure with regard to Fund raising compliance once we have finalized the funds need to be raised […]
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ITO vs. M/s. Superline Construction P. Ltd. that the assessee had duly discharged the burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital and advances received by established the identity
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s B & B Infotech Ltd. vs. ITO that once P&L A/c is admittedly prepared as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act, then neither the AO has any power to tinker with it nor the assessee is permitted to claim exclusion or inclusion of any item of income
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Refam Management Services (P) Ltd. that under Section 153C the assessment or reassessment of income of a person other than a searched person would proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A.
CIT Vs. M/s Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In this case Hon’ble Court considered question of law that whether claim for set off of unabsorbed business loss which was brought forward in subsequent AY against the profit of section 10 A is allowable or not.
DCIT VS. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (ITAT MUMBAI) The assessee was entitled to get subsidy @3% from the state government. As per the agreement with WB it was decided that it would get higher subsidy i.e. 4.5 %.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd. vs. DCIT that Section 292 uses the word ‘may presume’ and not ‘shall presume’ or ‘conclusively presume’. The words ‘may presume’ are in the nature of discretionary presumption different from a compulsory presumption.
Bombay High Court held In the case of Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs.CIT that eyes are an important organ of the human body and is essential for the efficient survival of a human being. Eyes are thus essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many.
Supreme Court held In the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT that it is well settled that a subject can be brought to tax only by a clear statutory provision in that behalf. Interest is chargeable to tax under the Interest Tax Act
In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number 27/2014-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 16th September, 2014, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3
