"01 October 2018" Archive - Page 2

Reporting of financial statements by a Company in XBRL

XBRL stands for Extensible Business Reporting Language. It is a language for the electronic communication of business and financial data which is revolutionizing business reporting around the world. It provides major benefits in the preparation, analysis and communication of business information. ...

Read More
Posted Under: Company Law |

Procedure for “Manual correction in EDI Bills of Entry JNCH -Reg.

Public Notice No. 134/2018-JNCH 01/10/2018

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III MUMBAI CUSTOMS ZONE-II JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, NHAVA SHEVA, TAL: – URAN, DIST: RAIGAD. PIN – 400 707. No. S/12-Gen/Misc-216/DPD-RMS/16-17/JNCH Dated 01.10.2018 PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 134/2018 Subject: – Procedure to be followed for “Manual correction in EDI Bills of ...

Read More

Mere use of any forged or counterfeit currency/bank notes is not an offence

Sanskriti Jayantilal Salia Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)

Sanskriti Jayantilal Salia Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) When mens rea is conspicuously absent, mere use of any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes cannot attract the provisions of Section 489(B). The essential ingredient of the said offence being that the person, who receives the notes has reason to believe ...

Read More

Reassessment invalid if notice U/s.143(2) was not issued

ACIT Vs M/s. Dimension Promoters (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

Where AO had framed the reassessment under section 148 without issuing notice under section 143(2), the reassessment order was invalid because it is mandatory obligation of AO to serve notice by assigning reasons therein with regard to his belief of escaped tax liability before making assessment of any escaped income....

Read More

TPO cannot conclude presence of international transaction u/s 92B merely surmises

Moet Hennessy India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Moet Hennessy India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)  In the present case, no new facts have emerged and all the facts brought to record, during the course of the assessment proceedings, do not indicate legally sustainable basis for coming to the conclusion that there was an internal transaction in respect of AMP expenses incurred […]...

Read More

Section 112A relief on off Market transactions of acquisition of equity share

Notification No. 60/2018-Income Tax [S.O. 5054(E)] 01/10/2018

Central Government, with a view to specify the nature of acquisition in respect of which the provision of sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 112A of the Income-tax Act shall not apply, hereby notifies the transactions of acquisition of equity share entered into—...

Read More

S. 68: Private limited co cannot say that it has no clue about Shareholders

Pee Aar Securities Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Pee Aar Securities Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee before us is a private limited company which is, by law, prohibited from offering its securities for subscription by general public. It cannot, therefore, be really open to the assessee to say that we have no clue about who the subscribers to the share capital […]...

Read More

BCCI is A Public Authority Under RTI Act : CIC

Smt. Geeta Rani Vs CPIO, M/o Youth Affairs & Sports (Central Information Commission)

Smt. Geeta Rani Vs CPIO, M/o Youth Affairs & Sports (Central Information Commission) The BCCI should be listed as a NSF covered under the RTI Act. The RTI Act should be made applicable to BCCI along with its entire constituent member cricketing associations, provided they fulfil the criteria applicable to BCCI, as discussed in the [&h...

Read More

Section 147 / 148 JCIT includes Additional CIT- Sanction by Additional CIT valid

Vikram Singh Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Bulandshahar (Allahabad High Court)

Vikram Singh Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee is that the notice was not issued with the prior sanction of the Joint Commissioner, but sanction was accorded by the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the A.O. was [&h...

Read More

Where issue is a debatable legal issue, penalty U/s. 271(1)(c ) not leviable: PVR case

DCIT Vs PVR Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

DCIT Vs PVR Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah Many cases are emerging out in which it is being held that where a claim by assessee is in respect of a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Income tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) cannot be imposed. Recently, in DCIT vs. PVR […]...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930