The appellant thus prosecuted the company and the three directors and prayed for appropriate punishment of imprisonment as well as direction to pay fine up to double the amount of the dishonored cheque.
The language of the Circular does not expand or alter the scope of the previous Notifications, but cements the claim of the merchant exporters, who were entitled to receive the benefit of AIR customs duty drawback since 2007.
The fact that the AO had in fact did not claim any carry forward of loss in the next assessment year would not be destructive of the petitioner’s right to exercise its option in terms of Rule 9(1) of the DTVSV Rules. Hence, the present petition is allowed.
The appellant-company has deducted TDS as per sec.194H of the Act on commission payment to Agent, however, not deducted any TDS on sales promotion and cash incentives paid to the retailers.
Raj Kumar Bothra Vs DCIT (Chhattisgarh High Court) AO should not have resorted to section 143(1) (a) and instead could have resorted to section 143 (3): Chhathisgarh HC The Chhattisgarh High Court, in the case of Raj Kumar Bothra vs. DCIT, has ruled that an Assessing Officer (AO) should not have resorted to Section 143(1)(a) […]
All these appeals were filed for AY 1991-92. Appellants were shareholders in the company. Earlier all three share holders were successful before CIT (A). Appeal were filed before tribunal. The sole legal issues that arises relates to the computation of cost of acquisition under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an asset distributed on liquidation of the Company, the asset being the immovable property at 552, Mount Road, Madras that belonged to the Company. The appellants had purchased 120 shares of the Company at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per share in the Company. The Company went into voluntary liquidation on 21.05.1990.
In the matter above-mentioned NCLAT have held that pre-existing dispute between the ex-director and its management company, could not have been resolved by the NCLT under the Code.
In the matter above-mentioned CESTAT Delhi Bench held that customs officers are stranger to the contract between the exporter and the overseas buyer and has no locus standi to change the FOB value of the goods.
Waters India Pvt. Ltd., based in Bengaluru, had entered into technical and marketing support agreements with its Austrian counterpart, under which it carried out product promotion, market surveys, and technical support in India.
On verification of various documents, CIT(E) noted that in the trust deed it has been categorically mentioned that the trust is a private trust and is set up to impart religious education to a particular caste who accept the principle of Varnashrama Dharma.
