Securities and Exchange Board of India Circular No. SEBI/HO/MIRSD/DoP/P/CIR/2022/91 | Dated: June 30, 2022 To, All Depositories All Recognised Stock Exchanges Dear Sir/Madam, Sub: Implementation of Circular on ‘Execution of ‘Demat Debit and Pledge Instruction’ (DDPI) for transfer of securities towards deliveries / settlement obligations and pledging / re-pledging of securities’ – Extension SEBI vide […]
Kedar Cotton Industries Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is observed that the approval to reopen the assessment in the present case and issue notice under Section 148 of the Act to the assessee was accorded by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax by recording his satisfaction in one word ‘Yes‘ and even the learned DR […]
Mandatory requirement of pre-show cause notice consultation, as embedded in Rule 142 (1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 – Voluntary statement cannot substitute pre-show cause notice consultation
Honble Delhi High Court considering the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) held that if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition on the primary ground on the basis of which proceedings under Section 147 were initiated he cannot make other additions.
The applicant is in jail since 27th October, 2021 i.e. for more than 9 months. Appellant contended that it is settled law that in criminal jurisdiction, presumption of innocence has to be presumed. It is further submitted that in the GST portal, there is no system of cross-checking in their software for the traders who are wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on Steel & Metals Co. penalty for CENVAT invoicing violations. Understand the case, analysis, and the implications of Rule 26.
Explore the dispute in Sh. Avtar Singh case where the Assessing Officer decision to reopen the assessment is challenged. Detailed analysis of cash deposits and legal aspects.
In the case of Shri M.Y. Jahabar Sadique vs. ITO, ITAT Chennai confirms AO decision on unexplained cash gifts and discrepancies in business advances. Detailed analysis here.
It is a clear case of an omission and, thus, non-application mind by the AO in the matter. That an absence or lack of enquiry, which ought to have been made under the circumstances, renders the order as erroneous in-so-far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision u/s. 263,
The new auditor, as per the established procedure, sought a no objection from the earlier auditor, who raised certain objections. Those issues were resolved later on, which led to the delay in the audit of the accounts of the assessee.
