ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not invocable for taking second opinion by Pr. CIT as the facts were already examined by AO.
Rajdhani Institute of Information Technology Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Cuttack) It was the submission that the assessee had been served with a communication dated 21.08.2015 intimating that the return filed by it was a defective return and if the defect was not rectified the return would be treated as invalid. Assessee had not complied with the […]
Once claim has been allowed in scrutiny proceedings, then AO cannot withdraw the claim under section 154, by mere change of opinion and without there being any apparent mistake on record.
SC held that order directing special audit under Section 142(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is required to be communicated to appellant-assessee, so as to know the reasons, and, if required, the assessee can choose to exercise the option to challenge the order.
An investigation was conducted upon ICFAI and its associates all over India, which resulted into issuance of multiple show cause notices proposing the demand of service tax along with applicable cess, interest and penalty, for the period of October 2007 to September 2009.
Arham Packaging Goods Pvt. Vs I.T.O. (ITAT Kolkata) Normally, we do not hesitate in adjourning the matters on the request of assessees but we find that it is a case of share application and share premium. There are large number of appeals pending on this issue before the Tribunal and out of them, 95% are […]
Once a notification enforcing anti-dumping duty is expired and non-existent, such non-existent notification cannot be extended.
FAQs guides applicants with regard to milestones to be achieved & reimbursement of sanctioned grant amount under IFSCA (FinTech Incentive) Scheme, 2022.
Stay up to date with the latest case law related to IBC in October, November and December 2022. Supreme Court finds OCs cannot enforce CIRP prematurely. AA must investigate plausible disputes, not feeble arguments.
Section 34 of Companies Act 2013 deals with liability for shifting financial statements or prospectus. It specifies that any person who is found to be responsible for any false statement or misstatement in prospectus whether or not the prospectus is published shall be liable.
