MCA Appoints 2 Govt Nominees in Appellate Authority under Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959 and Company Secretaries Act, 1980. MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 17th March, 2022 G.S.R. 212(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 22A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (38 […]
Vinayak Metal Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) On bare perusal of the contents of the show cause notice as well as the impugned order, we find that the said show cause notice is absolutely vague, bereft of any material particulars and the impugned order is also vague and a non-speaking order. It cannot […]
Mahantesh Vs Smt. Netharavati (Karnataka High Court) The undisputed facts of the case are that in the road traffic accident that had occurred on 23.11.2014, wherein the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-27/A-8377 was involved, the minor daughter of the claimants baby Kalpana, aged about 2 years had died. It is not in dispute that […]
Karur Jayaprakash Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We notice that the CIT(A) in his order has admitted the fact that the assessee’s representative for the first time produced various details on 21.06.2010 (page 4 of CIT(A)’s order). The CIT (A) has infact verified these evidences but had rejected the same merely on the ground that these […]
In the present case, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para XXII,XXIII, II, XII, XXXVIII mentioned in the part (D) of discussion and finding of impugned OIA cannot be regarded as amounting to a remand.
Tax Practitioners’ Association, Indore has made a representation against Indiscriminate and a rash of notices by Income Tax Department Tax Practitioners’ Association, Indore TPA Hall, Room No. 17, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhawan (Main Building), Indore – 452001 (M.P.) E-Mail : secretary@tpaindore.com Date: 16/03/2022 To, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman Hon. Union Minister of Finance, Ministry of Finance, […]
Arjun Yadav Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the instant case, it is not in dispute that employees’ contribution to ESI and PF had been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions […]
High Court held that use of the expression ‘may’ in Section 144B(7)(viii) is not decisive. Where a discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority whose decision has civil consequences, the word ‘may’ which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Consequently, the requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory.
We appreciate the step of the Union Government to unified three Municipal Corporations in Delhi into one single body which will certainly provide effective civic services in Delhi under the current scenario and also for future development of Delhi in a most responsible and structured way.
Notification No. 3/2022-Customs (N.T./CAA/DRI), Dated: 16.03.2022 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS) (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) New Delhi, the 16th March, 2022 Notification No. 3/2022-Customs (N.T./CAA/DRI) S.O. 1205(E).—In pursuance of notification No. 60/2015-Customs (N.T.), published vide number G.S.R. 453(E), dated 4thJune 2015 in Gazette of India, Extra-ordinary, Part-II, […]
