PRESENTATION ON MCA21 V3 Company module – Set 2 forms 23rd January 2023 Go-Live Set 2 – Forms Count Description Count of Forms 1 Set 2 [Incorporation forms] 10 2 Set 2 [Other forms] 46 TOTAL 56 Set 2– Incorporation forms Sl.No. Form Num Form Name Rule chapter 1 SPICe+ PART A Application for reservation […]
Since the revised return of income was filed on 19.03.2015 u/s 139(4) of the Act, it was a valid revised return as per the law in force at that time. In such a scenario, the AO ought to have considered the revised return of income for assessing the income of assessee.
There is no evidence of any construction activity or of the fact that assessee has invested the proceeds in statutory deposits and then spent any proceeds of the sales consideration of two properties he had sold, into the construction over this plot. Thus the property in which part investments of capital gains was done continued to be plot for all purposes and intent, for the assessee in the period when construction was to atleast to be started, if not completed.
Assessment year involved for reopening of assessment is assessment year 2016-2017 and appropriate authority for grant of approval in such case are authorities under Section 151(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Chapter IV of the Delisting Regulations, which states that shares transferred to the Investor Education and Protection Fund’s account shall be excluded while calculating 90% of shares tendered by public shareholders for successful completion of delisting offer.
In many cases, the banks are yet to inform the customers about the need for renewal of agreements before January 1, 2023. Further, there is a need for revision in the Model Agreement drafted by the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) to fully comply with the revised instructions.
RBI designate all Sovereign Green Bonds issued by the Government in the fiscal year 2022-23 as ‘specified securities’ under FAR.
When assessee entertained bona-fide belief that its account were not subject to audit u/s 44AB, it would certainly constitute reasonable cause for not obtaining the audit report and, therefore, question of imposing of penalty u/s 271B does not arise.
Delhi High Court case: Anuj Gupta seeks GST refund. Issue with GSTN registration. Court directs examination of GSTR 2A format. Refund processing timeline set.
So far as the penalty is concerned on such refundable amount, petitioner is not liable to pay the same since admittedly the respondent/revenue authorities’ own case is that the amount of refund in question was paid to the petitioner due to mistake on their part and for no fault on the part of the petitioner.
