To facilitate ease of doing business, a minimum time period is provided for preserving proof of sending by the company. The queries of stakeholders regarding period of maintenance of such records now get solved by this amendment as the discretion is given to the Board of Directors to decide the period of retention of such records, in any case not less than 3 years from the date of the meeting.
It was intended to apply the provisions of SS-1 to the committees constituted by the Board under the Act and not to various other committees constituted under the other laws/Regulations. The amendment in the definition is made accordingly, to reflect the intention.
We all are aware that the Secretarial Standards (SS) has been introduced by The Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) w.e.f. 1st July, 2015 and the same got its authentication under section 118(10) of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’). Time and again, there were modifications, alterations and amendments in the Companies Act, 2013 by […]
The Delhi High Court has directed the CBI to consider the application of an RTI activist seeking information about corruption within the central investigating body and action taken into allegations made by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of shady probe into the coalgate scam pursuant to a news report.
Retail Business in Indian Pharma Trade is a highly fragmented one and majority sales of Pharma Products are done through the Medical Shops dotting each and every nook and corner of the Country and they are mainly in Unorganised Sector. Sales turnover of most of these Retailers is in between Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs per annum.
We are disposing of the above Appeals preferred by the Revenue by this common order and judgment. The above Appeals have challenged the impugned orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short Appellate Tribunal) dated 3rd February 2016 in Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2017 and 11st January 2016 in Central Excise Appeal No. 27 of 2017 respectively.
In the instant case, the deductee has filed the return of income on 14.12.2012 and the long term capital gains resulted into capital loss which resulted into nil demand. According to the assessee, there was no tax payable by the deductee on the transaction of sale of immovable property. When there is no tax payable by the deductee on sale of land, there is no question of charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, as per instruction No.2 of 2014 dated 26.2.2014 and the circulars are binding on the Departmental officers. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act as per instruction No.2 of 2014 and accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
I am a small-time professional chartered accountant in field of Taxation practicing since 21 years. Have seen massive transformation of manual to fully automated system of filing the returns be it be Income Tax(CPC), Be it be TDS(TRACES), Be it be VAT (MAHAVAT), be it be Service Tax(ACES), be it ROC Filing (MCA) etc.
AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits found in bank account in case having regard to the human probabilities and normal course of human conduct, explanation offered by assessee was not wholesome, credible and verifiable.
Power of Central Govt u/s 66(2) regarding notice for reduction of share capital delegated to Regional Directors at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, New Delhi, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and Shillong vide notification dated 6.9.2017
