Such an agent would, therefore, continue to be covered by Section 32(c) of the Act as he would then present the signed document for registration only as an agent and must necessarily satisfy the requirements of Sections 32(c), 33. 34 and 35 of the Act and the rules framed in that context.
ITAT Delhi held that exemption granted to political party under section 13A denied to assessee (Indian National Congress) due to violation of 3rd proviso i.e. return of income not filed within prescribed due date. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that the expression ‘a residential house’ in unamended Section 54(1) of the Act includes more than one residential house. Thus, sale proceeds of one residential house used for purchase of multiple residential house qualifies for exemption u/s. 54(1).
The above statutory provision makes it clear that in event the Applicant, fails to comply with the second Proviso to modify the application within thirty days from the date of amendment, deeming provision of law shall come into play and the application shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
Delhi High Court upheld the attachment order under PMLA in view of appellant’s criminal and appellant’s failure to discharge the burden of proving the facts in support of his claim that the attached properties are untainted and not obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity.
Gujarat High Court held that not providing seven days time for filing of reply against notice in Form GST MOV-07 and passing of the impugned order u/s. 129(3) of the CGST Act amounts to flagrant breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ allowed.
Delhi High Court held that provisions of section 75(5) of the CGST Act cannot be interpreted in a manner that there has to mandatorily be a minimum of three adjournments afforded to every person. Accordingly, writ dismissed as not entertained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once cash sales are accepted as genuine for the purpose of determining profit, the same cannot be added again as unexplained cash credit by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that no interpretation contrary to Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] can be attributed to the expression ‘going concern sale’ as contemplated under Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
AO taxed the said surrendered amount under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
