Financial stringency would not justify the non-remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government. As such, by extending its benevolence.
We observe that the said provision clearly links profiteering to be a function of each supply of goods or services or both and hence, profiteering needs to be computed at the level of each invoice and not at the entity level or any consolidated level.
Any company once gone into CIRP, if at all the Corporate Debtor is to be run as a going concern, it can be obligated to pay the taxes from the date of initiation of CIRP. As to the dues of pre-admission period, the creditors, including Tax authorities, are entitled to make a claim against the Corporate Debtor as mentioned in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
URGENT STEPS NEEDED TO MAKE GST COMPLIANCES EASIER Business community is still not able to cope up with the GST Compliances due to various complicated and irrational provisions. Based on the feedback received from various stakeholders I have listed some of the suggestions which will be helpful with respect to : a) ease of doing […]
Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman held the Pre-Budget consultations with Finance Ministers of States and UTs (with legislature) here today.
Whether the payment of provident fund and employees state insurance (ESI) dues deposited by the Assessee within the grace period would qualify for deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
DCIT Vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, the appellant has shifted its global depository receipt exchange from AIM London stock exchange to the main market London stock exchange without increasing any capital but to provide a bigger platform to global depository receipt holders to trade their holding. The learned […]
Assessing Officer ought to have evaluated the claim made by the assessee for write-off of liability by Canara Bank in its favour amounting to Rs. 1,36,45,525/-, and should not have rejected the same merely on the ground of it being raised for the first time.
In the present case the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by only mentioning in Column No. 12 ‘YES’, in the Reasons for Initiating Proceedings u/s. 147 and For obtaining the Approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax. On this count the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed.
Court held that where the Act provides for sanction by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of section 151, then the sanction by the Commissioner of Income Tax would not meet the requirement of the Act and the reopening notice will be without jurisdiction.
