IBC 2016 leaves no room to RP for expediency or scope of interpretation of provisions in favour of any party. The RP is duty bound to bring all the facts before the CoC for taking appropriate decision. Again, post facto approval, after inviting fresh EOI from DSKL does not help the cause of Mr. Pankaj Sham Joshi either.
On the anti-evasion side, based on extensive data analysis, officers of Central Goods & Services Tax, Delhi Zone detected a case of availment of ineligible Input Tax Credit and short payment of tax in excess of Rs. 218 Crores. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 84 Crore has been since recovered. Kudos to the officers for their excellent detections. Keep up the good work!
National Centre for the Performing Arts Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, paid an amount of Rs.1,49,35,618/- electronically out of which a sum of Rs.1,09,06,948/- was deposited under the Accounting Code 00441480 as tax receipts and […]
Insurers are hereby permitted to pay profit related commission to non-executive director(s) including the non-executive director(s) appointed under section 48A of the Insurance Act, 1938, under the deemed approval mechanism
It is the case of the assessee that the rent payment to the licensor is independent of the CAM charges payable and thus the CAM charges cannot partake the character of rent. The assessee thus contends that the deduction rate applicable on CAM charges @2% under Section 194C has been rightly deducted.
There is no provision under head Profits and Gains from business or profession which deems rental income from unsold flats held as stock as Business income.
According to HC, the central issue, to which the Assessing Officer (AO) should have applied his mind is, as to whether the investment in shares of Agile by the petitioner was a capital account transaction, given the fact that there is no allegation of round-tripping.
Sureshbhai Vihabhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) There is no dispute to the fact that there is a downfall in the gross profit ratio declared by the assessee in the year under consideration in comparison to the earlier years. But the controversy arises whether the downfall in the gross profit ratio gives the authority to […]
HC held that Writ Court should not in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should substitute the findings of an assessing officer in his order with its own.
When the question is considered in the larger perspective, it is clear that there is no violation as alleged, more so because the PSI certificate issued by the Branch was subsequently ratified by the DGFT (as reflected in paragraph 25 of the Order-in-Original), which serves the purpose.
