In the case of Namrata Advertising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, it was held that creating infrastructure, displaying the advertisement and collecting rent for such display will not fall under the activity of advertising agency.
In the case of M/s SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. CCE, Raipur, it was held that merely because it had entered into four contracts for completing the scope of work would not take away from the fact that it was an operation of erection
Circular No. 1/2016 Section 801A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`Act’), as substituted by the Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000, provides for deduction of an amount equal to 100 % of the profits and gains derived by an undertaking or enterprise from an eligible business (as referred to in sub-section (4) of that section) in accordance with the prescribed provisions.
On the commencement of OFS on T day only non-retail investors shall be permitted to place their bids. Cut off price shall be determined based on the bids received on T day as per the extant guidelines.
In order to provide investors with enhanced diversification benefits and put mutual funds in a better position to handle adverse credit events, it has been decided to revise prudential limits for sectoral exposure and to introduce prudential limits for group level exposure.
ITAT Bangalore held in the case M/s Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that it is clear that the balance in the reserve and surplus is only on account of security premium amount after reducing the loss incurred by the assessee for the earlier year as well as during the year under consideration.
ITAT Pune held in the case Shri M.D. Wadhokar vs. CIT that it is an admitted fact that neither any details of donations were called for by the AO nor the assessee has given the breakup of such details during the course of assessment proceedings.
M/s. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- Tribunal held that the building plans for the residential and amenities space were sanctioned independently and merely because a common lay out plan was passed by the authorities, does not disentitle the assessee to the claim of deduction under section 80IB (10).
Supreme Court held In the case of Prakash & Ors vs. Phulavati & Ors that the text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005’.
(i) These Regulations may be called the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2016. (ii) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
