These regulations may be called the International Financial Services Centres Authority (Banking) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022.
Thus, note that reporting was kept in abeyance if tax audit report was filed before 31.03. 2022.Hence for F.Y 2021-22 reporting of the above-mentioned clauses is mandatory now from 01.04.2022 subject to any change and extension as and when notified by the Income tax Department of India.
GoM on Casino, Race Course and Online Gaming to re-examine the issues based on further inputs from States and submit its report within a short duration GoM to be constituted to address various concerns raised by the States on GST Appellate Tribunal and amendments in CGST Act GoM on IT Reforms, inter alia, recommended that […]
The intention of the parties is a key factor in determining the nature of the transaction. Hence, when the husband purchased the property in favour of his wife, unless the contrary is proved, it will be treated as the property of the wife purchased for her benefit.
TDS not deductible u/s 195 as the petitioner only seeks to make payment to Walmart Inc. of its payment to the seconded employee which is stated to be by way of reimbursement
The OP is stated to be a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as well as with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and has been engaged in the business of lending money to the public and collecting deposits. The Informant is stated to be a consumer under Section 2(f) (ii) of the Act.
Authority has held that the reimbursement by Industry Partner to the applicant, of the stipend paid to the trainees, does not attract tax under the GST Act.
The Application in GST ARA Form No. 01 of M/s THE GYPSUM COMPANY (Santosh Nagappa Shetty), vide reference Online ARA Application Dated 28.08.2020 is disposed of, as being withdrawn voluntarily and unconditionally.
Explore whether the functioning of NFAC serves its intended purpose. Find out how the assessment orders and litigation are affected.
we find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims solely on limitation. There is no dispute of the fact that the goods have been exported by the appellant during the period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for the exported goods.
