Madras High Court directs appellate Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of an appeal and consider that the petitioner cannot be left without any remedy, as there are prima facie indications of a mistake in not filing Form 67 as required under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962.
जानें क्यों जीएसटी अधिकारियों द्वारा DRC-03 के माध्यम से दबाव डालकर कर वसूलना गैरकानूनी है। न्यायालय ने संविधान के अनुच्छेद 265 का हवाला देते हुए अवैध कर संग्रह को रोका।
NCLAT Delhi held that it is not justified to start entire process from stage of Information Memorandum since CIRP period has already came to an end and Adjudicating Authority has remitted matter to CoC for fresh consideration of resolution plan.
Such an agent would, therefore, continue to be covered by Section 32(c) of the Act as he would then present the signed document for registration only as an agent and must necessarily satisfy the requirements of Sections 32(c), 33. 34 and 35 of the Act and the rules framed in that context.
SEBI’s 2025 amendment to the Investment Advisers Regulations changes rules for deposits. Deposits must now be lien-marked and available for dispute resolution dues.
SEBI 2025 amendment to Research Analyst Regulations alters deposit rules mandating a lien in favor of a recognized body for dispute resolution.
ITAT Delhi held that exemption granted to political party under section 13A denied to assessee (Indian National Congress) due to violation of 3rd proviso i.e. return of income not filed within prescribed due date. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that the expression ‘a residential house’ in unamended Section 54(1) of the Act includes more than one residential house. Thus, sale proceeds of one residential house used for purchase of multiple residential house qualifies for exemption u/s. 54(1).
The above statutory provision makes it clear that in event the Applicant, fails to comply with the second Proviso to modify the application within thirty days from the date of amendment, deeming provision of law shall come into play and the application shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed a case by ADIF against Google, ruling that allegations over its ad policies were already decided in prior cases.
