(a) Identification and verification of Beneficial Owners (i) Beneficial Owner (BO) is the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls an FPI and should be identified in accordance with Rule 9 of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred as PMLA Rules).
What is the investment limit for foreign Government/ foreign Government related entities registered as Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPI)? Reply: The purchase of equity shares of each company by a single FPI or an investor group shall be below ten percent of the total paid up capital of the company. [Ref. Regulation 21(7) of FPI Regulations].
Sonega Trades & Investments Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai); During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.3.72 Lacs as Municipal Taxes and other charges u/s 24 against rental income earned by the assessee. The said charges comprised-off of Rs.0.72 Lacs being monthly maintenance charges and Rs.3 Lacs being License […]
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has been issuing various circulars/directions from time to time. In order to enable the users to have an access to all the applicable circulars/directions at one place, Master Circular for Debenture Trustees (DTs) has been prepared.
CIT Vs M/s Essar Telehoding Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of subsection (2) and subsection (3) of Section 14A as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in the […]
As the appellant is using the brand name of another person but it was by way of assignment deed. In that circumstances, the appellant is not using the brand name of another person but they are using their own brand name as assigned to them. In that circumstance, benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, we hold that appellants are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28th July, 2017 to the extent it allows the Revenue’s application for rectification, is without jurisdiction. This is so as it amounts to review of its order dated 6th June, 2016 which had been passed in an appeal for Assessment Year 2004 05 after due consideration of the very issue. In any case, the issue raised is a debatable issue. Therefore, outside the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act.
On account of a mistake committed by the petitioner during 2009 in providing the PAN number of another firm for the purpose of obtaining registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act), the request of the petitioner for registration under the GST statutes were delayed and were granted only with effect from 12.08.2017.
This is an application moved by the department for vacation of ad interim stay orders dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017. It has been pleaded in the application that in this case the then concerned Assessing Officer had passed a very well-reasoned order while disallowing the claim of the assessee of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act.
CBDT has vide notification No.16/2018 dated: 03rd April 2018 released ITR-1 SAHAJ, ITR-2, ITR-3, ITR-4-Sugam, ITR-5, ITR-6, ITR-7 and Acknowledgement- ITR-V for Assessment Year 2018-19 / Financial Year 2017-18 and Same can downloaded in PDF Format (Return Filing Utilities are also expected to be released soon) from the links given below:- Form No. Applicability Download […]
