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
A two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad v. M/s. C. N. Builders & Developers held that the deduction under section 80-IB is available to the assessee- Builder, even if the construction is not according to the plan approved by the authorities.
Whether the CESTAT was right in holding that the assessee was not providing Management, Maintenance or Repair Service by collecting amount from prospective flat buyers, for maintaining the building, in the guise of deposits which is not returnable? Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding that assessee is providing statutory service and has rendered definition provided under Section 65(105)(zzg) of Finance Act as null and void by accepting that he is not providing Management, Maintenance or repair service by maintaining the building and collecting amount for that or not?
It is alleged by petitioner that despite the Petitioner having filed the TRAN-1 form on 24.11.2017 and the status after filing being FILED on GSTN Portal, the status of the form online was tampered on the GST portal from FILED to SUBMITTED at the end of GSTN which is an unauthorized, illegal, malafide and criminal act by a Private Limited Company GSTN which is online custodian of GST returns/records of the Union of India and State of Maharashtra having jurisdiction over the Petitioner in matter of assessment of GST.
If the IPL has resulted in all of us being acquainted and familiar with phrases such as Betting, fixing of matches, then, the RBI and the Central Government should at least now consider whether holding such tournaments serves the interest of a budding cricketer, the sport, the game itself.
