3.1. AMCs shall ensure that the transactions (financial/ non-financial) can be executed only if there is a service agreement between the AMC and the service provider / platform.
The charge pertains to non-submission of requisite information by the Broker to the inspection team such as solicitation related documents, mandate letters, comparison chart, quotes, proposal form, policy documents, complaints related documentation etc.
The export of Syringes with or without Needles falling under HS code specified above or falling under any other HS code has been put under ‘Restricted’ category with immediate effect. The procedure for submission and approval of application for export of syringes will be notified separately.
Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) There was an interpretation that whether the portion of contribution recovered from the employee, the Cenvat credit there on can be allowed or not and the said issue has been settled by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It is a settled law that when there […]
ITO Vs Sanjay Gurudasmal Chawla (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 24(b) of the Act for the reason that the assessee claimed such deduction only by way of revised computation in the course of the assessment proceedings. However, this claim of the assessee was entertained by the Ld.CIT(A). […]
Ahinsha Chemicals Ltd Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that the requirement of requesting for fixation of a special rate in respect of the value addition to the manufactured goods had arisen only after the final judgment of the Supreme Court on 22.04.2020, […]
Sunrise Containers Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) There is no dispute that the legal case was filed by the Distiller’s Association of Maharashtra which consists of many member manufacturers. Therefore, the beneficiary of the outcome is not only the appellant but all the members which means that the service was availed by all […]
ACIT Vs Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not claimed the said professional expenses in its profit & loss account and had capitalized the same under work in progress i.e. ‘Building under Construction’ in fixed assets schedule. The CIT(A) thus deleted the addition. We find merit in the order […]
DCIT Vs Surbhit Impex Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) It is undisputed position that as on the relevant point of time, the proceedings against the assessee for recovery of these amounts were pending before the Hon’ble judicial forums. It was only on 29.01.2018, i.e., which much after the end of the relevant previous year, that Their […]
Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Section 238 of IBC 2016 will have overriding effect over all other Central and State statutes including the Income-tax Act and all the claims including claim of the Income-tax Department under the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall be entertained by the Official Liquidator u/s 53 (1) of the Code. […]
