Person responsible for collection and payment of securities transaction tax in case of Insurance Company.- In the case of an insurance company, the person responsible for collection and payment of securities transaction tax in accordance with sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 100 of the Act, shall be the managing director or a whole-time director, as defined in clauses (54) and (94) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), duly authorised by the Board of Directors of such company in this behalf.
ThoughtWorks Technologies (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per clause 4 of the agreement between the assessee and the First Leasing (lessor) the asset shall remain the exclusive property of the lessor (First Leasing) at all times. It further provides that the lessee at no time during the lease period can capitalize the […]
Section 144B | Faceless Assessment- An assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and same has to be given, if an assessee asks for it. The right to personal hearing cannot depend upon the facts of each case.
ITAT hold that the provisions of sec.115JB are not applicable to a banking company i.e. the assessee herein also. Having held that the provisions of sec.115JB are not applicable to the assessee, we are of the opinion that grounds No.19 to 22 need no adjudication at this stage.
SEBI has been publishing the status of disposal of investor grievances received in SCORES (SEBI Complaints Redress System) on its website on a monthly basis. Details of investor grievances, which are pending for more than three months with different intermediaries, are also being published.
Roop Lal and another Vs Suresh Kumar Yadav (Allahabad High Court) This is a claimants appeal, claiming enhancement of award for the death of a child who was 07 years of age at the time of his death. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was a brilliant student and he had very […]
Vikas Elastochem Agencies Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Central Excise & GST (Madras High Court) No doubt, the petitioner was required to file GST Tran 1 with correct information. However, the Courts have taken note of the fact that there were difficulties in making proper declarations in Tran 1 at the initial phase of implementation […]
In the SICOM Limited vs. Sundaresh Bhat case, the Appellant’s U/s. 60(5) Application was accepted. Learn why Section 42’s limitation doesn’t apply.
LG Soft India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Limited v. JCIT (supra) had held education cess is an allowable expenditure as the word ‘cess’ is conspicuously absent under the provisions of section 40(a)(ii) of the I.T.Act The Hon’ble High Court also placed reliance […]
It is found that taking undue advantage of the previous Notice, by which parties’ Advocates were permitted to indicate the date of listing without mentioning for circulation, a large number of matters in which there is no urgency are being listed.
