FAQs > Filing Ledger Related Grievances (PMT-04) 1. For which issues can I raise a grievance related to Ledgers? Grievance can be raised in case of following issues: Discrepancy in Electronic Cash Ledger Discrepancy in Electronic Credit Ledger Discrepancy in Electronic Liability Register 2. Who can report grievances? Do I need to be a registered […]
Announcement PATTERN OF ASSESSMENT FROM MAY 2019 EXAMINATION Students appearing in the Intermediate and Final Examinations may please note that beginning from May, 2019 attempt, assessment in the following subjects would be partially based on objective type questions: Intermediate Level Final Level Paper Subject Paper Subject 2 Corporate and Other Laws 3 Advanced Auditing and […]
Notice u/s 148 of the Act can only be issued if the income escaping assessment amounts to, or is likely to amount to Rs. 1 lac. Non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs. 1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 26th March, 2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,12,72,940/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Aggarwal Associates and Jainco Group of cases and their relatives on 19.10.2011.
This bunch of appeals for AY 2013-14 are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior against upholding levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter short the Act).
Where the cars were used by the society for its work of school, and these cars were used for various purposes, such as, liaisoning with DIOS and CBSE Board, etc, such contentions had not been refuted with any cogent evidence, by AO therefore, no disallowance was to be made.
The raising of monetary limits at various appellate FORA in legacy Central Excise & Service Tax matters as a measure towards reduction of Government litigation has been in sharp focus in the past few months.
It is submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has resigned from the directorship of the company in question, the petitioner would not incur a disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act. Consequently, the disqualification of the petitioner as notified in the lists dated 6thSeptember, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 by the respondent no.1 was incorrect and illegal.
PCIT Vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd (Karnataka High Court The existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before the High Court. While the appeal to High Court under Section 260-A of the Act may be a First appeal in the sense from the order of final fact […]
In re IL & FS Education and Technology Services Ltd. (GST AAR Maharashtra) Question 1. Determining applicability of Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated the 28th June 2017 read with Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 29.06.2017 to the services provided by the Applicant under the Information and […]
