Explore Vrajeshkumar Chokshi vs. ITO case: Invalid assessment reopening, challenged LTCG addition. Detailed analysis of unfounded premises, Short Term Capital Loss, and quashing the assessment.
Form No. 1, Form No. 2 and Form No. 2A is required to be signed, verified and furnished by the class of person responsible as defined in the Securities Transaction Rules 2004
The Respondent has not disputed the findings of the DGAP regarding method of computation of profiteering and the amount worked out by him. As such, the Authority finds no reason to differ from the above-detailed computation of profiteering in the DGAP Report or the methodology adopted and hence, the Authority determines the profiteered amount for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018, in the instant case, as Rs. 1,42,45,741/-, for the project Sports Ville.
The present report dated 264)2.2021 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed Investigation under Rule 129(6) of the CGST Rules. 2017 The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules. 2017 and alleged that the Respondent.
Draft Food Safety and Standards (Health Supplements, Nutraceuticals, Food for Special Dietary Use, Food for Special Medical Purpose, and Prebiotic and Probiotic Food) Regulations, 2022. FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 24th June, 2022 F. No. Std/SP-05/T(Nutraceutical-2022).—The following draft of certain regulations which the Food Safety and Standards Authority of […]
Currently, many entities, including merchants, involved in an online card transaction chain store card data like card number, expiry date, etc. [Card-on-File (CoF)] citing cardholder convenience and comfort for undertaking transactions in future.
Umesh Kumar Shukla Vs. Pan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) We have considered the Report furnished by the DGAP, the submissions made by the Respondent and the other material placed on record. On examining the various submissions, the observations of this Authority are as follows:- a. Upon perusal of Table-B, it is observed that while calculating […]
Karanja Terminal & Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court) The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the department and is the subject matter of an […]
Vivimed Labs Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Sinhaghad Technical Educational Society (2017) 84 com 290 (SC) that no such proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act sustainable in law for want of incriminating material found or seized during the course of search. We make it clear that […]
Printland Digital (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nirmal Trading Company (NCLAT) NCLAT held that There is a difference between recalling of an order and review on merits of the issue decided by the Adjudicating Authority. No doubt that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to review its order after deciding a substantial issue but it has […]
