Hon’ble Supereme Court admits SLP- Transer pricing adjustment should be restriced to AE transactions only and not on entire turnover of assessee
Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case?
As HUF cannot be a registered shareholder in a company and hence could not have been both registered and beneficial shareholder, loan/advances received by HUF could be deemed as dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act,
SC held that amount received as subvention/grant from parent company by a loss making subsidiary cannot be considered as revenue receipt in the hands of subsidiary company as grant was made by parent company to protect its investment made in subsidiary.
Writ been filed in SC requesting to quashing/setting aside penalty, surcharge and also provisions for lock-in/withholding of 25% of disclosed income for 4 years under the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016, (Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016), i.e. Section 199D(2), 199E and 199F of the Finance Act, 2016, by declaring them illegal and null and void;
Time For Adapting Necessary Changes, Defining Of Discretionary Powers Of Authorities As Well As Recodification Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Income Tax Rules, 1962
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Karnataka Planters Coffee Curing Works (P) Ltd. assessee had shown sudden increase in creditors without any matching purchase transactions.
National Anthem should not be utilized by which person involved with it either directly or indirectly shall have any commercial benefit or any other benefit.
SC held that income from tips would be chargeable in the hands of employees as income from other sources, such tips being received from customers and not from employer
Supreme Court clarified on the term ‘offer period’ under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997
