Loss suffered by an assessee on account of foreign exchange difference as on the date of balance sheet was an item of expenditure under Section 37(1) as the view of AO and CIT (A) that the investments were made on, from the FNCR loans was not based on any supporting material and was only a presumption.
Punjab & Haryana High Court modifies conditions for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in Amandeep Singh Bhui vs Inspector CGST case.
DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Facts- An application seeking ad interim ex parte injunction was filed by the plaintiffs against Google India, Google LLC and Just Dial restraining them from using or permitting third parties to use plaintiffs’ registered trademark AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS or DRS LOGISTICS either […]
ADIA files ROI in India disclosing income falling within the scope of section 5(2). However, in view of exemption available in terms of India-UAE DTAA, ADIA reports NIL taxable income. AAR denies the benefit of India-UAE DTAA benefit to ADIA in respect of income accruing on the investment made or proposed to be made by Green Maiden A 2013 Trust which was established by ADIA and ETL.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petitions by observing that question of looking into the records, going into the facts and examining mismatch, this exercise can be done by the Appellate Authority only. Therefore, petitions shall avail alternative remedy.
Assessment was sought to be reopened not on account of failure of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income but on account of change of opinion of AO about the manner of computation of the deduction under Section 57, therefore, the same was invalid.
Since none of the other relevant material, which was the basis of the seizure under Section 17(1A) and the complaint under Section 17(4) of the PMLA were supplied to assessee, as the same were not even supplied by the ED to the AA. Thus, ED should forward a copy of the documents to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after a freezing order under PML Rule.
With respect to seized goods, there was neither any notice under clause (a) of Section 124 issued to assessee within six months of the seizure nor had the period of six months been extended for a further period of six months, therefore, in the absence of there being any notice as required by the first proviso even within the extended period upto one year, the consequence that ought to follow was release of the seized consignments.
Govind Vs State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 06.01.2019, the police registered a written complaint from Excise and Taxation Officer, Panipat. The complaint mentioned that a Firm got registered under HGST Act on the basis of fake and forged documents and thus received the […]
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs Invesco Developing Markets Fund (Bombay High Court) Facts- Two institutional investors issued the requisition notice to Zee Entertainment. A suit is filed by Zee Entertainment against the demand of two institutional investors seeking extraordinary general meeting. Zee Entertainment has filed a suit arguing that the requisition notice send by the […]
