Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee had used a pre arranged device in form of booking of bogus purchases of shares. This finding of the Assessing Officer is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any material on record. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,32,850/- made u/s 69C is hereby sustained.
Corrigendum to an Order in Original can be issued only for correcting typographical errors. A corrigendum cannot be used to cover up the main part or main issue that has to be adjudicated.
Sujit Kumar Dey Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) The assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by ld. PCIT has been challenged before us by the assessee. Before we advert to the facts and law involved in this issue before us, let us revisit the law governing the issue before us. The assessee has challenged […]
Bank of Baroda Vs Rajiv Rai (NCLT Chennai) Section 238A of IBC, 2016 applies to the entire provisions of IBC, 2016 and as such Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 also applies to an Application filed under Section 95 of IBC, 2016. In the said circumstances, as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, […]
Puja Vs PCIT (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-Income Tax Department, and seeks time to file reply. Prima facie, the impugned order dt. 03.04.2022, passed under Section 148 (A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 appears to have been passed with regard to a […]
In re GDPK Returnable Solutions India Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai) Temporary import/re-export of Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) as reusable packing containers and its eligibility to avail duty exemption (a) the laden/ unladen IBCs imported into India are eligible to avail the exemption under the Notification No. 104/94-Cus., dated 16.03.1994; (b) There is no requirement to […]
In re Private Entrepreneurs Godowns Association Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (CCI) As far as the allegations of there being an anti-competitive agreement in violation of competition law amongst OP-1 and OP-2 are concerned, the Commission observes that the Informant, besides making bald allegations, has placed on record no material, which may even prima facie […]
In re House of Diagnostics LLP Vs Neurologica Corporation (CCI) It has been alleged by the Informant that OP-4 is the exclusive aftersales service provider of OP-1 in India with respect to the machine in question. On the other hand, OP-4 has replied that though it is the authorised service provider of aftersales services with […]
In re Hiveloop Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Britannia Industries Ltd. (CCI) The Commission finds that, with respect to the allegation of discrimination between the Informant and other distributors of Britannia, neither the Informant nor its group entity can be said to be similarly placed as other, more than three thousand, distributors of Britannia. In the […]
In re Vijay Gopal Vs Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (CCI) The exclusive and restrictive agreements of BookMyShow with single screen cinemas and multiplexes, in conjunction, prima facie appear to have the potential of denying market access to competing platforms and potential entrants. The cinema theatres as well as the cinegoers alike are restricted in […]
