As per AO, Shri Birat Chandra Dagara was one of the partner of the assessee firm and had owned the mining lease and submitted the details as per which the assessee was found indulged in the illegal production of iron ore.
Revision order was remanded back for re-examination of assessee qualification as venture capital as where the amount had been received from the Venture Capitalists, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable.
Once the State Government had extended the benefit under the particular scheme, the same could not be withdrawn by the Electricity Department basing on the audit report. In absence of any evidence of theft being committed by assessee, the benefit of Intensive Policy could not be withdrawn.
Portion attributable to utilisation for import of assets into India must be capitalised under Section 43A, while the portion attributable to utilisation for acquiring assets from within India must be treated as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.
Signing of the assessment order was an integral part of order generation in e-assessment and the assessment proceedings conclude only after the order was digitally signed, therefore, signing of the assessment order should not be brushed aside lightly.
Since there was no infirmity on the behalf of the investigation agencies in invoking confiscation under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of seven gold bars bearing foreign markings out of the ten bars seized.
Court declines writ petition in Hindustan Unilever case due to available statutory remedy. TDS demand of ₹962.75 crores under Section 201 for trademark purchase.
Read a summary of the HAL vs HAL Contract Workers Association case where Karnataka High Court rules on contract labour consultation under Labour Act.
The difference in the fair market value and the issue price of compulsory convertible preference shares was only 0.65%, therefore as per Rule 11UA issue price was deemed to be fair market value and hence no scope for addition required to be made u/s. 56(2)(viib).
Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: The order of the original authority becomes merged with the order of the Revisionary Authority. Since the Revisionary Authority was located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court, assessee had the option to file the petitions here or […]
