This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order dated 2nd December, 2016 passed by the Settlement Commission (Commission) under Section 245 D(6B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) While mere making of provision for bad debts will not by itself (on application of amended law) entitle the party to deduction, yet it would be a matter where the assessee should be given an opportunity to establish its claim. This by producing its evidence of […]
Allowance of bad debt depends on how it is reflected in accounts
In this flash editorial author discusses the provisions of liability of directors after strike off of Company or winding up of Company by tribunal after Struck off in the record of Registrar of Companies.
Certain Advocates have forgotten the code of eithcs. They facilitate the unethical misadventures of their clients, encouraging their clients dishonest practices, causing grave stress to the Judiciary, and bringing the entire judicial system to disrepute.
ITAT held that fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs. 5 of a little known company would jump from Rs. 5 to Rs. 485. AO was justified in denying exemption under section 10(38) to assessee, being fantastic sale price was not at all possible in such a short time.
Revenue was not justified in issuing the impugned attachment notices under section 226(3), since they had already recovered more than 15 per cent of the disputed demand in view of the Office Memorandum issued by CBDT.
ribunal followed its decision in M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v/s. DCIT to held that an amount disallowed under Section 14A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act.
No more adjournments. No more tareek pe tareek. Enough is enough. That a Court will endlessly grant adjournments is not something that parties or advocates can take for granted. Nor should they assume that there will be no consequences to continued defaults and unexplained delay
Yet again, Section 143(1D) of the Income Tax Act came under the scrutiny of a Constitutional Court. This time, it was the High Court of Bombay, which held categorically while considering many writ petitions in Tata Projects Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2(3)(2) & Ors., that Section 143(1D) of the Income Tax Act
