Notification No. 150/2015-CUSTOMS (N. T.) Gold, in any form, in respect of which the benefit of entries at serial number 321 and 323 of the Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012 is availed- 345 per 10 grams
Some unlisted companies are luring retail investors by issuing securities including non-convertible and convertible debentures/ non-convertible and convertible preference shares/ equity shares in the garb of private placement, without complying with the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 read with the Companies Act, 2013, SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities), Regulations, 2008, SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares), Regulations, 2013 and SEBI (Issue of capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009.
The return of income was filed on 31.10.2005 at an income of Rs. 4,04,020/- for AY 2005-06. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO took note of the fact that the assessee and his wife purchased property at front and rear side of portion at ground floor for a consideration of 40 Lakh each and 3,20,000 was paid as stamp duty on each portion.
SEBI REIT Regulations were notified on 26th September, 2014, thereby providing a regulatory framework for registration and regulation of REITs in India. The Regulations, inter alia, provide that ‘The Board may specify by issue of guidelines or circulars, any other requirements, as it deems fit, pertaining to issue and allotment of units by an REIT.
In the case of M/s. Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi Bench of ITAT remanded back the matter and held that DRP has not met the contention of the assessee in respect of inclusion/exclusion of comparable in its order.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that there is no dispute that for purchasing the property at Munirka for a consideration of Rs.9,37,33,600, the assessee had taken loan from HDFC Bank for Rs.6.50 crores on which the authorities below have allowed the interest paid by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Avaya India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT that a perusal of the annual report of company reveals that the said company has made income from sale of license to the tune of more than Rs.1 crore,
The facts of the case are that the Assessee, (who died during the pendency of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi wherein she was residing since 1956.
CIT Vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Assessee has indeed discharged its onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender (TIL). There was no requirement in law for the Assessee to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the sub- creditor, which is in this case was TCL.
While hearing an appeal filed by Dabur India Ltd Promoter Pradip Burman in Black Money case related to undisclosed Bank Account maintained Outside India, Delhi High Court held that prosecution can be launched against him as at the time of commission of alleged offence
