Pacific World Shipping PTE Ltd. Vs Dadi Impex Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT) The main grievance of the Appellant is that the Operational Creditors have been given only token 2% of their claims admitted while the Financial Creditors are given 100% of their claims. The learned Counsel for the Bank has then relied on Regulation 37 of […]
The sole issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.5,01,00,000/- made by AO u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of bogus share capital including share premium
Frequently Asked Questions on e-Invoice Q 1. What is an e-invoice? Ans: Issue of a tax invoice in an electronic format to the recipient and validated/authenticated by the tax administration before it is transmitted to the receiver. Q 2. Is it mandatory to issue e-invoice from the designated government portal? Ans: No, the tax invoice […]
Comparison of the Reporting Companies (Auditor’s Report) Order 2020 (CARO 2020) vis a vis Companies (Auditor’s Report) Order 2016 (CARO 2016) Applicability of Companies (Auditor’s Report) Order 2020 It shall apply to every company including a foreign company as defined in clause (42) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) [hereinafter […]
As per the circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995 states that where the provisions of Section 172 are to apply, the provisions of Section 194C and 195 relating to tax deduction at source are not applicable.
Arvind Kumar Munka Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) The petitioner as I have been found in the earlier order that he is a Chartered Accountant by profession and with the similar contention he has averred that he is no way connected with the instant case. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused […]
It is clarified that existing recognized entities in IFSC can also apply for Investment Adviser (IA) registration without forming a separate company or LLP.
Field formation should not carry out any enquiry u/s 133(6) or issue notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of the data presently available in either AIMS Module of the ITBA or the AIR information earlier shown in the ITD till further directions are issued.
TAT see no reason to uphold the levy of penalty in the present case U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the basis for levy of penalty, being cancellation of registration granted to the assessee U/s 12A of the Act and as a consequence treating its surplus and corpus donation as not exempt but taxable under the Act, has been quashed by the ITAT.
In re M/s Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation (GST AAAR Karnataka) CWC is only providing the 488 sq metres of space in the central warehouse for rent. The space has been taken on rent by the Appellant for storing the food grains. The activity which is under consideration here is the activity performed by […]
