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!
Whether intermediaries are required to carry out in-person verification (IPV) of the client, if KYC verification of the client is carried out through Aadhaar based e-KYC service offered by UIDAI as per the aforementioned SEBI Circular?
Reference has been received in Board regarding assessment of CVD payable on set top boxes (STBs), when imported by a Direct to Home (DTH) broadcasting service provider and where STBs are provided free of cost to the consumers of DTH service.
It has been brought to the notice of the Board that wireless microphone sets/systems consisting of one or more wireless microphones and a wireless receiver are not being uniformly classified under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1and sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(51 of 1975), read with rules 18, 20 and 23 of the Customs Tariff(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped
I am directed to forward herewith a copy of OM No. 11019/4/2015 PG-C1 dated 11.02.2016 received from Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances on the above mentioned subject, for necessary action.
The Bombay High Court held that the monthly alimony amounted to taxable income in the hands of the assessee. However, the lump sum alimony was in the nature of capital receipt.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Assessee’s objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice.
It remains undisputed that in the reasons recorded by the AO, there is no allegation, much less any specific one, regarding any alleged failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment.
Delhi High Court held In the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT that absence of a provision similar to sec. 40(a) (i) does not mean that the Assessee would also be disentitled to claim deduction on account of salaries in the year to which such expenses pertained even though
Assessee and Department have been involved in tug of war on cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods. The assessee attempting to avail credit of every possible input / capital goods /input service by liberally interpreting their definitions and department denying the Cenvat credit by following the principle of literal interpretation. Cenvat Credit on sales commission has always been a sensitive issue since dawn.
