PCIT Vs Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s. Ferns ‘N’ Petals (Delhi High Court) There is no such statement in the present case which can be said to constitute an admission by the Assessee of a failure to record any transaction in the accounts of the Assessee for the AYs in question. On the contrary, the Assessee […]
Sajjanraj Mehta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) During the appellate proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 03/04/2018 submitted that the AO has made addition ignoring the 1st and 2nd proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014. The appellant was allotted flat no. 502 in the building Kamla Astral, Dadar for a total […]
Charging of shareholder with crime under PMLA cannot be a ground to attach property of Company unless there is an allegation that property acquired by company was from proceeds of crime.
SC observed and held that in a tax matter when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Assessment Order by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal.
Q. Upon listing of the Company, will it be permissible, as per the SEBI SBEB & SE Regulations, for stock options to be granted under the ESOP Plan 2013 to the doctors who are proposed to be engaged as Eligible Employees. i. Regulation 2(1)(i)(i) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Share Based Employee […]
TNGST Act, 2017 – Tvl. Mahindra & Mahindra Exemption from generation of e-way bill for the movement of vehicles for the purpose of testing under rule 138 (14) (d) of TNGST Rules, 2017 Notification issued.
Even where an employee has died while in service, some offices are rejecting the claims saying that the contribution was not received during the previous few days and therefore the EDLI benefits are not payable on account of such NCP days.
PCIT Vs Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Ltd. (Formerly Known As Global Heritage Venture Ltd.) (Delhi High Court) High Court held that till the final award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal determining the ownership of the fixed deposits (FDS) and interest, it could not be said that the interest income had crystallized in the respondent’s hands […]
AO had wrong assumption of facts and by applying incorrect law without due application of mind allowed claim of interest paid on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b). Therefore, in our opinion, PCIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction
It is strange that that the order dated 26th May, 2022, has not been implemented till date. The interest on the refund continues to run at the cost of the exchequer.
