In the case at hand, the applicant is the recipient of the services and not supplier of such service. Accordingly, the Application is not liable for admission and therefore rejected without going into the merits of the case.
There was no new tangible material evidence brought on record by AO. Assessment was reopened only on the basis of details available on record and wrongly interpreted by AO.
ICAI has issued suo moto notices to the statutory auditors of Amrapali Group for the period 2008-2015 and also for the latter period. The ICAI has issued suo moto notices to these auditors by treating as Information in terms of the provisions of the disciplinary mechanism as provided in the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the Rules framed there under.
Electoral Bond Scheme 2018 Sale of Electoral Bonds at Authorised Branches of State Bank of India (SBI) Government of India has notified the Electoral Bond Scheme 2018 vide Gazette Notification No. 20 dated 02nd January 2018. As per provisions of the Scheme, Electoral Bonds may be purchased by a person (as defined in item No.2(d) of […]
M/s.V.R.Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court) When there was no cash involved in the transaction of allotment of shares, provisions of Section 68 of the said Act treating it as unexplained cash credit are not attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant assessee emphatically argued that inasmuch as the source of credit in […]
Notification No. 23/2018-Customs (N.T./CAA/DRI) Director General, Revenue Intelligence, hereby appoints the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi to act as a common adjudicating authority for the purpose of adjudicating the matters relating the Show Cause
The regulatory framework for Institutional Trading Platform was put in place vide amendments to the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 on August 14, 2015, with a view to facilitate listing of new age start-ups in sectors like e-commerce, data analytics, bio-technology and other start-ups.
The short question in this appeal is whether the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant had a right of reply to the show cause notice. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative, for the reasons discussed hereinbelow.
Gautam Jhunjhunwala Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) in the light of the definition of ‘transfer’ as defined u/s. 2(47) of the Act it is clear that when any right in respect of any capital assets is extinguished and that right is transferred to someone, it would amount to transfer of a capital asset. In the light […]
ITO Vs Sunil Shiv Khanna (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the view that the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act is to be reckoned from the date of handing over of the possession of the flat by the builder to the assessee i.e. 11.09.2009, and if we take that date, the assessee […]
