Ajeet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) ITAT held that the amendment brought in the statue i.e., by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act amended by inserting explanation 2 is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the amended provisions of Section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable […]
Jayaram Panda Vs Project Director (Orissa High Court) Sub-section (3) in section 31 mandates that the arbitral award shall state the reasons, upon which it is based unless, inter alia, it is to be made as per the clauses (a) and (b) in the sub-section. Said clauses do not apply in the facts and circumstances, […]
Geeta Singh Vs Pradeep Singh (Delhi High Court) If a company is a drawer of the cheque, it is a necessary party to proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act. The liability of a private person, in his capacity of a Director or any other authority to act on behalf of the Company, […]
Mere entries in third parties’ records of Transporters and brokers cannot be basis for clandestine removal. It is settled law that documents recovered from a third party can be used against the manufacturer to prove clandestine removal only when these are supported with corroborative evidences.
A notice which does not mention the particulars, on which the case against the person is based, cannot provide a foundation for the proceedings that follow.
ITAT held that non mentioning of relevant limb or non striking off of irrelevant limb in penalty notice is a substantive defect in imitation of proceedings itself and consequent penalty levied on the basis of such defective notice can not be sustained.
ENA and the Malt Spirit in its original form are not the alcoholic liquor fit for human consumption and would therefore, not come within the amended definition of clause(d) of Section 2 of the CST Act and in view thereof, the petitioner would not be entitled to get the ‘C’ Form, as claimed by the petitioner herein.
AO did not make any addition with regard to URD purchases, which were considered to be bogus or inflation of expenses, in the respective years. Without making addition of alleged bogus/inflated expenses, the A.O. could not disallow depreciation
The entire controversy revolves around the question as to whether the assessee has been able to provide explanation for difference of stock between the stock submitted to the bank as on 28/3/2005 and the stock indicated in the audit report for the period ending 31/03/2005 relating to raw material, stock-in-process and finished goods.
SEBI reviewed process being followed by Registrars to an Issue and Share Transfer Agents & Depositories/ Issuer companies for effecting transmission of securities.
