Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Public Holidays for year 2023 under Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 in Maharashtra GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai 400 032, dated the 2nd December 2022. NOTIFICATION PUBLIC HOLIDAYS–2023 No. PHD-1122/C.R.117/Desk-29.— In exercise of the powers of Central Government under section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881) […]
Kerala High Court proceeding finalized against the petitioner based on certain computer records cannot be challenged before High Court as alternative remedies before the Appellate Authority is available before the petitioner. Matter involving adjudication of facts is not possible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Delhi held that it is settled law that the revenue cannot travel beyond the issues involved in the limited scrutiny cases, except in exceptional circumstances and hence addition confirmed beyond the limited scrutiny case is unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that adjudicating authority cannot reject the documentary evidence without verifying the authenticity of the same. Rejection of the documents without ensuring the authenticity is gross violation of principle of natural justice which is untenable in law.
An Independent Director is a non-executive director of a company who helps the company in improving corporate credibility and governance standards. We can also say that; an Independent director is a director who is not connected or associated with the company in any manner.
Kerala High Court directed the Centralized Processing Centre at Bengaluru to process the refund which are due to the petitioners which is not processed due to technical defect. Also directed to grant interest on account of delay in payment of refund.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the source and genuineness of receipt of shares from brother in USA is proved, addition of the same is unsustainable in terms of explanation 2 to section 56(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Also, there is no need for any ‘occasion’ for receipt of such gift from the brother.
Supreme Court held that period of limitation prescribed u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is to be applied while calculating period of limitation for claiming rebate of duty under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rebate claim rejected as filed beyond period of limitation of one year of relevant date
Karnataka High Court held that the expenses incurred towards stamp duty in connection with issue for public subscription of shares or debentures of the company is an allowable expenditure under section 35D of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that the Adjudicating Authority is not authorized to issue show cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 for violations of provisions in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973.
