Principal CCIT Vs Nalini Chidambaram (Supreme Court of India) Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for interim stay of the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the said judgment may be acted upon in other similar cases. While, we decline the prayer for stay, as the same would amount to grant of […]
High Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as it had to decide validity of s. 148 notice, whether notice based on change of opinion, assessed reasons to believe and findings recorded by ITAT on merits whether was legally sustainable.
When an amount was paid as Dharmada along with the sale price of goods, such payment was not made in consideration of the transfer of goods but for charity, therefore, the same did not form part of the income of assessee and could not be included in the transaction value or assessable value of the goods
PCIT Vs Chain House International (P) Ltd (Supreme Court of India) In this case Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Madhya Pradesh High Court held that The question raised by the revenue in regard to issuing the share at a premium is purely a question of fact. It is a prerogative […]
Avenue for seeking certified copies as well as inspection is provided both in the Right to Information Act and in Company Secretaries Act, 1980. We are cognizant of the fact that guidelines of the appellant, framed by its statutory council, are to govern the modalities of its day-today concerns and to effectuate smooth functioning of its responsibilities under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980.
Except the deductions provided under the first proviso to Section 6B(1) nothing else can be deducted from the total turnover as defined under Section 2(u2) for the purpose of levy of turnover tax under Section 6B of the Act.
Properties were purchased by the defendant with some financial assistance from his father, however, the same cannot be sole determinative factor to hold the transaction as benami in nature.The plaintiff has miserably failed to establish and prove the intention of the father to purchase properties for and on behalf of the family, which were purchased in the names of defendant.
Provisions of Section 142(2C) as they stood prior to the amendment which was enacted with effect from 1 April 2008 by the Finance Act, 2008 did not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction and authority by AO to extend time for the submission of the audit report directed under sub-section (2A), without an application by assessee. Thus, AO who prescribed time limit for filing auditor’s report under Section 142(2A) was also entitled to extend time limit even if extension was not sought by assessee.
PCIT Tax Vs M/s. Oil Industry Development Board (Supreme Court) Hon’ble supreme court held that in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance under Section 14-A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT Delay condoned. In view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income […]
G Ramesh Vs Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & Anr. (Supreme Court of India) In terms of the explanation to Section 141, the expression ‘company’ has been defined to mean any body corporate and to include a firm or other association of Sub-section (1) of Section 141 postulates that where an offence is committed under Section […]
