(viii) any amount received from a person who, at the time of the receipt of the amount, was a director of the company or a relative of the director of the private company: Provided that the director of the company or relative of the director of the private company, as the case may be, from whom money is received, furnishes to the company at the time of giving the money, a declaration in writing to the effect that the amount is not being given out of funds acquired by him by borrowing or accepting loans or deposits from others and the company shall disclose the details of money so accepted in the Board’s report;
Review of existing Foreign Direct Investment policy on Partly Paid Shares and Warrants Press Note No. 9 (2015 Series) Dated- 15.09.2015
In continuation of its efforts to serve the profession, Tax Research Foundation has today filed a Writ petition titled as ‘Avinash Gupta & Ors Vs Union of India and Ors’ , seeking extension of due date of furnishing Tax Audit Report.
Notification No. 92/2015-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
PRIVATE PLACEMENT OFFER LETTER UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 AND RULE 14 OF PROSPECTUS AND ALLOTMENT OF SECURITIES CHAPTER III. Section 42 of Companies Act 2013 provides, companies shall make a private placement through issue of a private placement offer letter (PPOL).
In the case of Fifth Avenue Sourcing (P) Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Service Tax it was held BY Madras High Court that second proviso to Section 35F of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the proviso to this Section shall not apply to stay applications and appeals pending before the appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance Act (2 of 2014).
In the of CIT Vs. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd, Delhi High Court held that the AO erred in disallowing the capitalization of the additional customs duty in the manner claimed by the Assessee and adding the entire customs duty paid in the relevant AY to the income of the Assessee.
In the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs CIT, Delhi High Court inter-alia held that the expression ‘BPO’ and ‘KPO’ are, plainly, understood in the sense that whereas, BPO does not necessarily involve advanced skills
In the case of CIT vs M/s.Meghalaya Steels Ltd. the Supreme Court held that High Courts being Courts of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them.
In the case of M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise it was held by Supreme Court that even during the period when the facility of payment of excise duty in instalments on fortnightly basis is not available and remains suspended
