1. These rules may be called the Companies (cost records and audit) Second Amendment Rules, 2017. 2. In the Companies (cost records and audit) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the principal rules), in rule 2, for clause (aa) the following clause shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 1st day of July, 2017, namely:-
While hearing the case of Sri Chilukurthi Veeraiah vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Assessing Officer (AO) should give reasonable opportunity to produce evidence to assessee to examine source of gift.
1. What is Table 6A of FORM GSTR-1? Table 6A of FORM GSTR1 is a table of GSTR-1 – Outward Supplies Statement of the Supplier, which an exporter desiring refund of taxes paid on exports or ITC related to exports is required to furnish on the GST portal. He has to declare the details of export invoices in this table.
It is also an admitted fact that no such condition has been imposed in the notification, dated 20.12.1975 that the registered dealers engaged in sale of the above said goods, have to produce ‘C’/’D’ Forms for claiming concessional rate of tax.
M/S Ramdev Trading Company And Another Vs. State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Penalty and seizure is not sustainable for movement of goods without Transit Declaration Form (TDF) unless there exists malafide intention to evade taxes. In absence of any allegation or evasion of tax being made against the petitioner at the stage of detention […]
If AO was not satisfied regarding transaction relating to the cash deposited by partner whose identity was not in doubt and assessee had furnished all the relevant documents, then addition could have been made in the hands of said partner and not in the hands of the assessee.
Atluri Usha Rani Vs Asst. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. I have also carefully perused the development agreement-cum-GPA. The said agreement shows that the builders and developers have to bear all the expenditure for preparation of the said plan, obtaining licenses, permissions as well as execution […]
With this common order we will dispose of the captioned applications of the assessee seeking stay for the recovery of outstanding tax demand for assessment year 2009-10 & 2013-14 respectively.
We are of the considered opinion that this was not a correct approach of the High Court for the simple reason that merely because one authority has followed its own decision in another case and that matter in appeal has been dismissed on technical grounds still the High Court has to decide the question on merits.
Respondent No.1 herein (the complainant) had lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Bar Council’) on 19.12.2003 against the appellant, who is an Advocate by profession,
