Exemption under section 2(15) was allowable to assessee-Investor Financial Education Academy as the surplus of assessee could not be distributed, which was clearly spelt out in the Memorandum of Association, income and profit of the company, whatsoever derived should be applied solely for the promotion of its objects as set forth in the memorandum; no portion of the income or property aforesaid should be paid or transferred.
Sri Siva Saravana Blue Metals Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) The Appellant State and the Revenue Authorities are directed not to restrict the use of ‘C’ Forms for the inter-State purchases of six commodities by the Respondent/Assessees and other registered Dealers at concessional rate of tax and they are further directed to permit […]
Section 2(22) (e) would stand attracted when a payment is made by a company, in which public are not substantial interested by way of advance or loan to a share holder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of the shares. Thus, deemed dividend under Section 2(22) (e) is to be assessed in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the partnership firm.
CIT Vs Sterling Tree Magnum India Ltd. (Madras High Court) Learned Tribunal has categorically held that there was no failure on the part of the assessee, but disclosed the relevant facts and therefore, merely on the basis of the audit objection or change of opinion and re-assessment under Sections 147 & 148 of the Income […]
The issue under consideration is whether the ROC is correct and empowered to deactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) of the director due to his disqualification in one company?
The issue under consideration is whether the assessment order u/s 143(3) made by the AO in clear breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C is merely erroneous or is void ab initio?
The issue under consideration is whether the AO’s order for rejecting the application for issuance of a certificate for lower deduction or nil deduction u/s 197 is justified in law?
Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) From the reasons recorded, order rejecting objections of the petitioner and the reply affidavit of respondent No.1 in the present proceeding, it is clearly discernible that the basis for re-opening of assessment was the two letters of departmental authorities dated 29.02.2018 and 29.03.2018. Though petitioner […]
The issue under consideration is whether the petitioner firm had correctly accounted for the deposits made in its account during demonetization?
Lahari Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Where the goods re-imported for repair/reconditioning of the goods, when again re-exported beyond the prescribed period of one year including the extension of six months permitted in the Notification, assessee/ importer definitely became liable to pay the custom duty in question in view […]
