New Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing Forms 9A, 10, 10B, and 10BB Post 18th November 2024 as per Circular No. 16/2024-Income Tax In certain instances, due to unforeseen circumstances, the assessee or auditor may file the audit report for the trust in Forms 9A, 10, 10B, or 10BB after the due date. As […]
Simplified guide on board composition rules for listed companies under SEBI LODR, covering director roles, independence, and requirements.
India-Switzerland MFN clause suspension may cost $100 billion in Swiss investment, raising tax rates on dividends and impacting the India-Swiss DTAA benefits.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that delays in GST appeals under Article 226 can be condoned despite CGST Act limitations. Learn about the key judgment and its implications.
NCLAT Delhi held that since other materials on record prove the disbursement of amount and default, non-stamping of promissory note is inconsequential and could not be a reason to reject Section 7 application. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Madras High Court held that section 16(5) of the GST Act should be considered while disallowing Input Tax Credit clam beyond period prescribed under section 16(4) of the GST Act. Thus, directed to re-do assessment.
Madras High Court directed petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount in case of ex-parte order passed. In case the amount is paid, the order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections.
ITAT Chennai held that only peak credit to be considered and no further addition to be made in case of circular transaction since bank account of appellant’s father duly considered for the purpose of calculating peak credit in the hands of assessee.
Without purchases, there would have been no sales. AO’s claim of inflated purchases to reduce tax liability was not substantiated, as all 10 transactions of diamond purchase and sale were documented with relevant details.
Addition of Rs.10 Crore under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as Revenue failed to specify whether the addition was being made alleging concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
