The Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal in the case of Star Industries v/s The State of Gujarat (Second Appeal No. 347 of 2013 decided on 02.09.2014) has, in the context of penalty u/s 45(2)(c) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, held that where only under bonafide belief the appellant had failed to pay purchase tax u/s 15B on the transactions of branch transfer
In the present case, the submission of the assessee before the Tribunal, as recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, is that the only reason which was given by the Assessing Officer for initiating reassessment proceedings was that the property was sold by the assessee for Rs.31 lacs
SEBI has vide Notification No. LAD-NRO/GN/2014-15/06/1372 dated 25th August, 2014 issued Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2014 (the Amendment) making few amendments in the conditions for IPO, Minimum offer to Public, allocation of net offer to public, pricing of equity shares and Schedule XI dealing with the Book Building process. Several portions have been made in line with SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011.
There may be instances where the customer has given a mandate for crediting dividend on shares to Savings Bank account and there are no other operations in the Savings Bank account. Some doubts have arisen whether such an account is to be treated as inoperative account after two years.
It is, therefore, advised that banks should clearly delineate the procedure for disposal of loan proposals, with appropriate timelines, and institute a suitable monitoring mechanism for reviewing applications pending beyond the specified period. It is, however, reiterated that there should not be any compromise on due diligence requirements. Banks may also make suitable disclosures on the timelines for conveying credit decisions through their websites, notice-boards, product literature, etc.
Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) has held that the differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making the assessment of same property or while valuing the same property.
The respondent-assessee had submitted that their total turnover was Rs.4697.23 crores, as against investment in shares of Rs.2.95 crores. In the previous assessment years they were maintaining dual portfolio of investment (capital asset) and stock-in-trade (trading asset).
RESOLUTIONS TO BE PASSED TO REDUCE FILLING FEES OF MGT14 of small & medium size companies, if draft exemption is not passed in parliament 1) First board meetings of small & medium size companies should pass resolutions in respect of following (at least), to reduce cost of filling Form MGT14: i) Pass resolution for disclosure of interest, ii) Approval of financial […]
CA Paras Mehra Mr Ashish Ranjan, developer, started his business in Hong Kong. Since he was good at marketing, his business soon started generating profits. Ashish, through his Hong Kong Company expands his business in India and incorporates a company which is fully controlled by Hong Kong Company. Ashish, because his business was doing well, […]
assessee had set up a unit at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh for packaging of Horlics, Boost for Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. The assessee filed its return of income claiming deduction u/s 80IC of Rs. 6,59,69,287/- @ 100% on the profits of the eligible business alleging
