Held that the initiation of winding up proceedings in Madras High Court would not save limitation for initiation of proceedings for initiation of CIRP in the NCLT under Section 7 of the IBC.
State of Maharashtra Vs Greatship (India) Limited (Supreme Court) 1. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the MVAT Act and CST Act 2. Assessee preferred Writ before Hon. Bombay High Court which quashed the Assessment Order and the Demand Notice 3. Against which Revenue filed […]
Understand what a term sheet is and how it plays a crucial role in investments. Learn about its key components and principles.
AAR Haryana held that that Security services provided by LLP to any registered person are not covered by Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM)
Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV) Vs Xiongwei Li (Delhi High Court) The proforma for issuance of the Look Out Circular indicates the nationality of the respondent to be that of China. As per the communication dated 19.2.2022 apart from the aspect of M/s Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited (HTICPL) and M/s Huawei Technologies […]
ITAT held that addition of loss from traded in penny stock not justified if no information about engagement of assessee in manipulative activities and details of purchase/sales of shares submitted by him was not doubted.
Appellant not liable to penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules as he has not done nor has been concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, etc., of excisable goods.
Interest income earned by assessee on its investments with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of Act.
All Corporates are ready to file their Income Tax Return for the AY 22-23 on or before 30th September 2022 and claiming various deduction under Chapter VI A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Vicarious liability can be fastened on those who were incharge of and responsible to the company or firm for the conduct of its business. Supreme Court observed that a High Court can quash a cheque case only if it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques.
