In Shiva Laxmi Exports Ltd Vs CIT, the division bench of the Calcutta High Court held that interest income could not said to have had accrued when the same was waived by the Company by passing a resolution. While deleting the addition made in respect of the said income, the bench clarified that such income is excludable from the levy of income tax.
Right to carry on trade and profession including right to convey property in course of such business is an essential fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the same do not stand eclipsed by the continuing incarceration of a prisoner.
Matter related to transitional provisions under section 68 of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988, which bestowed jurisdiction to hear the case only on High Court, however, as in the case in point, the issue was transferred to NCLT under the 2013 Act, the NCLT would have jurisdiction, even though the amended section 68 had not been actually repealed but it should be regarded to have been impliedly repealed.
The short question which falls for decision in this case is whether a judgment and order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and an order of compensation imposed under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a direction to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of such compensation is appealable or not.
Main thrust of the appellant’s case is that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act as amended could not be given retrospective operation and if that position of law was accepted, then it was not open to the C.I.T. to direct an enquiry to ascertain the source and genuineness of the sums being projected by the appellants as capital receipts.
Deficit incurred by a trust could not be treated in the same way as that of a loss sustained by an assessee under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession‘ for such deficit to be furnished in a return and verified. The same was to be allowed to be set off against surplus […]
Is a person, not being a member or a creditor or the company itself, entitled to challenge the striking off of the name of the company under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956? Does the petitioner have the locus standi to file and maintain the present writ petition?
Assessing Officer had treated the claim of long term capital gain as business income. The assessee did not object to that. In such situation there could be no application of Section 14A for disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income.
Akshay Jhunjhunwala & Anr. Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) The petitioners have assailed the vires of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the second respondent is a corporate debtor in respect of whom a proceeding under the […]
Section 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not
