Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court) Rule 9B(5) starts with a non-obstante Under the said rule, it is laid down that deduction under Rule 9B shall not be allowed unless the distributor credits in the books of accounts, the amounts realised by the distributor in case where the distributor himself has exhibited […]
CIT Vs. Cactus Imaging India (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court) It can be inferred that the machines ‘computer printers’ under consideration can either be called computers-printers, since a lot of independent functions done by the computers are done by these printers and they can be called an integral part of the computer system. It should […]
M/s Kishan Lal Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Tax (Chhattisgarh High Court) In the proviso (a) to sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the VAT Act an embargo has been created for the purpose that no proceeding initiating suo motu revision under Section 49 (3) shall be initiated after the expiry of three calendar years […]
We are concerned in this petition with the actions of the RBI and the Enforcement Directorate, both of whom refer to the criminal proceedings launched by the CBI. Those in-charge of their affairs and those in power giving them directions ought to realise that nothing would be achieved if foundations and base of these institutions is shaken and if they allegedly obey every command of the political masters
Where no return was filed by assessee within statutory mandated time and the obligation to file any return remains suspended till such time that a notice was issued for such purpose under section 153A(1)(a), such return would be deemed to have been filed within the time permitted under section 139(1) and benefit under section 139(3) could be availed of by assessee.
It is submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has resigned from the directorship of the company in question, the petitioner would not incur a disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act. Consequently, the disqualification of the petitioner as notified in the lists dated 6thSeptember, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 by the respondent no.1 was incorrect and illegal.
1. While allowing deduction under section 10B, the deduction is to be allowed to eligible undertaking, even the income being in negative. 2. Cutting and polishing of precious and semi precious stones constitutes manufacturing as contemplated in section 10B, 3. No fresh fact or fresh material which formed the reasons to believe for reopening of the assessment except the order passed by the AO, there being no other reason given by the AO for re-opening the assessment, notice issued under section 148 of the Act quashed.
PCIT Vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd (Karnataka High Court The existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before the High Court. While the appeal to High Court under Section 260-A of the Act may be a First appeal in the sense from the order of final fact […]
Shrikant Mohta Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) When search operations are conducted under Section 132 of the Act, the obligation of the assessee to file any return remains suspended till such time that a notice is issued for such purpose under Section 153A(1) (a) of the Act. If the return is filed by the assessee within the reasonable time […]
In transfer pricing disputes, comparability analysis and use of appropriate filters has been one of the most prevalent issues, especially for captive cost plus remuneration service providers.
