In the matter of Mr. Venkata Sivakumar, Insolvency Professional (IP) under Regulation 11 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016
Where AO made addition under section 68 based on third party statement recorded by investigation wing, however, without affording opportunity of cross-examination to assessee, it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, addition was deleted.
From close scrutiny of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is axiomatic that an amount payable towards interest, royalty, fee for technical services or other sums chargeable under this Act shall not be deducted while computing the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession on which tax is deductible at source; but such tax has not been deducted.
In re Dempo Diary Industries Limited (AAR Karnataka) The applicant themselves admitted that M/s KMF hold 90% shares and hence have management / administrative control over the applicant. M/s KMF are the owners of `Nandini’ brand, against whom an offence case is pending before DGGI, Bengaluru on classification of flavoured milk. Thus it is very […]
Okram Ibobi Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Manipur High Court) Petitioner is the Ex-Chief Minister of the State and it is not as if he will run away from the prosecution, if any, initiated against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, explicitly stated that the petitioner would extend […]
In re Manyam Venkateswara Rao (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) Question: Whether in the facts and circumstances the contributions to National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) and District Mineral Foundation (DMF) under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR) read with National Mineral Exploration Trust Rules, 2015 (‘NMETR’) and Mines and Minerals (Contribution to […]
ITAT Kolkata quashes arbitrary disallowance by AO. Ambuja Housing wins against DCIT. Get insights into the judgment on Rule 8D and 14A.
It is seen that the reason for detention was that the route described in the e-way bill did not match with the route by which the goods were actually being transported. It is therefore that the stand of the respondent that the transportation of the goods was not supported by a valid e-way bill.
DDIT Vs Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Learned DR contended that MIPL is economically dependent on assessee company as major revenue of MIPL is from assessee company. We are of the view that this per se cannot be ground to hold that MIPL is a Dependent Agent. For invoking this clause, first one of […]
Objective of this Consultation Paper on ‘Review of framework of Innovators Growth platform (IGP) under SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018′ is to seek comments / views from various stakeholders including start-ups in particular, market intermediaries and the public on the framework of Innovators Growth platform (IGP) under Chapter X of SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 (the SEBI ICDR Regulations’).
