Continuing with this motive, the Indirect Taxes Committee of ICAI, has recently revised its Background Material on GST Acts and Rules- May 2018 Edition (Two Volumes: Vol-1 : Act & its analysis along with Rules, Vol-02: Notifications, Circulars & Orders).
Rajendra Shringi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is justified in law? ITAT states that no doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, ITAT are not concerned […]
Consideration paid by assessee for services rendered by non-resident were purely in the nature of procurement services and could not be characterized as ‘managerial’, ‘technical’ or ‘consultancy’ services and thus, could not be classified as fee for technical services and accordingly, not liable for deduction of tax at source under section 195.
Since possession of land was not handed over to the Developer by assessee-society, therefore, there could not be any transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even based on part performance of the contract. Accordingly. there was no liability of capital gain tax under section 50C.
The entire consideration for free-hold land was paid by M/s SICCL but in what capacity, was not known and transfer of same land by assessee to SICCPL at a consideration which had a vast difference than that was acquired by assessee after execution of free-hold deed did not conform to even any normal business transaction entered into by a person of ordinary prudence
NCLAT, recently, vide its order dated 18.11.2019 in the matter of State Bank of India v Anuj Bajpai, has held that the disqualified persons under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , are completely and irrevocably barred from having access to the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Details of the Order has been discussed below:
Since assessee had sufficient documentary evidences before AO to prove that money routed from assessee itself which came back to assessee in the form of share capital/premium and AO neither made any further enquiry on the documentary evidences filed by assessee nor verify the trail of the source of funds received by assessee through various entities thus, assessee had been able to prove that it had received genuine amounts which was routed through various companies.
Provisions of section 56(2)(viia) was not applicable on acquisition of shares of a foreign company from its directors because as per rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines “balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company and the amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 was prospective in nature. If the computation provisions could not apply, the charging section also could not apply as both sections should be read together in order to make the said provisions workable in accordance with law.
Rojer Mathew Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court) 1. Leave granted. BRIEF BACKGROUND: 2. In the present batch of cases, the constitutionality of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 and of the rules framed in consonance has been assailed. While it would be repetitious to reproduce the pleadings of each case […]
Scheme of Financial Scheme of Financial Assistance/Scholarship to Students of CA Course, Year 2019-20 The Board of Trustees of the Chartered Accountant Students Benevolent Fund (CASBF) has decided to provide financial assistance/scholarship for amount of Rs. 1500/- PM, to students who are registered in CA Intermediate /IPCC course and serving articled training as well as […]
