Regulation 27(2) of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (Listing Regulations), specifies that the listed entity shall submit quarterly compliance report on corporate governance in the format specified by the Board from time to time to recognised Stock Exchange(s) within fifteen days from close of the quarter.
This Writ is been filed by V. Nagendra Prasad an advocate and Tax Consultant from Hyderabad in Hyderabad High Court against the adamant attitude of CBDT and Finance Ministry in not extending the due of of Income Tax Return and Tax Audit cases , which is also been communicated vide its Press Release Dated 09th September 2015.
In a Historic/Landmark Judgment Delhi High Court in the case Avinash Gupta Vs. UOI has although not allowed extension of due date for filing ITR for AY 2015-16 but instructed the Govt. to ensure availability of forms for tax audit from the beginning of next assessment year.
Karnataka State Chartered Accountant Society (KSCAA) & Sri.Raveendra S.Kore vs Union of India & CBDT (Karnataka High Court ), Writ Petition (WP) 41109/2015, 41110/2015. Updated on 28.09.2015- Hon’ble Karnataka high court directed CBDT to consider the representation of KSCAA by 29.09.2015. –
Bombay High court held In the case of R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (P) Ltd. vs. The CIT that concept of double taxation is not attracted in the present matter. The Export firm has to pay tax as it has actually utilized that amount as its income while the assessee has to pay tax as it attempted to conceal that income.
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Nagpur Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. that in order to attract ceiling u/s 40(c), the payment must be a periodical payment. A Lumsum payment or one time payment is not covered under section 40(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High court held In the case of CIT vs. Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. that following the judgment of (2003) 264 ITR (38) (Bom.) (CIT vs. Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.)
Bombay High court held In the case of The CIT vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia & others. that amendments in the statute unless a different legislative intention is clearly expressed, shall operate prospectively.
ITAT Kolkata has held in the case ITO Vs. Piyush Jalan that where lending of money is substantial part of the business of the concerned company and any advance or loan is made by it to a shareholder in the ordinary course of its business
It has been held in case of Mukesh V. Prajapati Vs ITO (Ahmedabad ITAT), that the amount of cash credits shown as loan taken from various relatives , cannot be added as unexplained credit under sec 68 just on the presumption that the sources of the fund is not genuine
