IBBI recently amended its following regulations, vide which it has effected revision of existing fee structure along with relevant forms, applicable to Insolvency professionals (IPs) and Insolvency Professional Entities (IPEs) and has also introduced regulatory fee
These Regulations may be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022.
CESTAT ruled that CBEC does not have the power to modify the scope of an exemption notification that the Central Government has issued.
HC ruled in favor of assessee by directing department to process Input Tax Credit claim that were previously rejected solely on the ground of inadvertent error.
Real estate agencies have a lot of financial information to track, from rental income to property sales to commission payments. It can be easy for things to slip through the cracks without proper accounting management.
Assessee, a retired bank employee earning pension, deposited Rs.15 lakhs cash in his bank account on 13.11.2016 which he explained as withdrawal on 13.10.2015 or a perceived need and kept the cash with him and the very same cash was deposited . AO rejected the explanation for the reason that the assessee failed to explain the perceived need for which cash was withdrawn holding that no prudent person would keep cash and lose interest if he deposits the money in FD. AO treated the cash deposit u/s 69A. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
Kerala High Court held that where there is no liability to deduct TDS, the mere fact that TDS was so deducted and paid to the Income Tax Department belatedly, cannot give rise to a claim for interest under sub-section (1A) of Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment beyond four years period is invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that absolutely no indication as to how the amount received by the appellant from PGVCL would qualify as Business Auxiliary Service. Only bland allegation without any substantiation cannot be upheld.
In present facts of the case, the NCLAT allowed the appeal by expunging all adverse observations made against the Appellant in the impugned Order by observing that appearance for an entity being a separate company which has initiated separate proceeding under Section 7 against different Corporate Debtor and appearance of the Appellant in that proceeding in no manner can be said to be in breach of any Rules of Etiquette or can lead to any conflict of interest in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
