DC is of the view that Mr. Mahesh Venkataraman failed in taking proper custody and control of the assets of CD-1 due to which breach of moratorium was done by management of suspended board by operating account with ICICI Bank, and with respect to CD-2, Mr. Venkataraman failed to maintain complete transparency in sharing profile of the professional engaged by him, with CoC.
UIDAI framework allows insurance companies to identify the customer by using his/her Aadhaar with consent management. In the absence of the Unique Customer Identification in the insurance sector, insurance companies are facing various issues while providing the services and claims apart from ease of onboarding the customers, circumventing possible frauds etc.
Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. (Calcutta High Court) Learned advocate for the petitioners submits before this Court that the present petitioner No.-3 has resigned from the company as a Director in the year 1994 and the other petitioners have no connection in the alleged occurrence of offence, however […]
Addl. CIT Vs Tejal Ashish Mehta (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee has furnished a copy of Income Tax return for assessment year 2016-17. A perusal of the same shows that in Schedule – EI, wherein the assessee was required to declare exempt income, the assessee has duly reflected the maturity value of the insurance policy. The […]
SC upheld NCLT interim directions, including constitution of CoC for Eco Village Project-II only; the said project to be completed with assistance of ex-management whereas other projects, apart from Eco Village-II, were ordered to be continued as ongoing projects.
Banks/FIs are advised to ensure that no new transaction undertaken by them or their customers rely on or are priced using the US$ LIBOR or the MIFOR. Banks/FIs are also advised to take all necessary steps to ensure insertion of fallbacks in all remaining legacy financial contracts that reference US$ LIBOR (including transactions that reference MIFOR).
Hazra Iron Works Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) Appellant has not paid the duty as per the ACP (Annual Capacity of Production) fixed by the Commissioner for the years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The Appellant’s contention is that they have not opted for payment of duty under 96ZP(3) and hence they are liable to […]
Shri Ram Ply Product Vs Addl. Commissioner (Allahabad High Court) Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides that an appeal, against any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act by the adjudicating authority, may be filed before appellate authority within the […]
Delhi High Court held that sales tax subsidy received by assessee be treated as capital receipt and not be added to income of asseseee.
SDS Cargo Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) PCIT had given a categorical finding that the AO has not carried out any enquiries on the issue of CFS charges paid to Continental Warehousing Corporation in light of relevant provisions of the Act which render the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the […]
