Income Tax : Dive into the Principle of Mutuality, exploring its meaning, tax implications, and impact on cooperative societies. Discover case ...
Fema / RBI : It is felt that enormous powers are conferred on Banks or Public Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act, 2002 from the stage of...
Finance : I strongly believe that implementing the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 making a good balance between the object and the int...
Goods and Services Tax : Levy of sales tax on a higher percentage on ‘superior kerosene oil' (SKO) (also called white kerosene oil) and also levy of resa...
Income Tax : For the sake of convenience, the attached tables summarises the valuation rules for all perquisites prescribed in the new rule 3 e...
Income Tax : A dozen private nursing homes and hospitals today lost their approval granted under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act on the bas...
Corporate Law : Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between...
Income Tax : Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves...
Corporate Law : Paragraph 27AA of the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme could not be automatically imposed on establishments exempted under S...
Fema / RBI : The Tribunal held that once allegations of money laundering are established, the burden shifts to the accused. Failure to prove le...
Income Tax : The case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid bus...
Income Tax : Circular No. 2/2010-Income Tax The Finance Act, 2005 introduced a levy namely Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on the value of certain fr...
Income Tax : Notification No. 94/2009 - Income Tax For the purpose of computing the income chargeable under the head Salaries, the value of pe...
Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between the alleged proceeds of crime and the main offence and ED did not check important things like role of doctors, hospitals or end users.
Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves & Surplus in the Balance Sheet and the same has to be routed through the Profit & Loss Account to arrive at the correct book profits u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Paragraph 27AA of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme could not be automatically imposed on establishments exempted under Section 17 of the EPF Act unless the Appropriate Government issued a specific official notification modifying the conditions of such exemption.
The Tribunal held that once allegations of money laundering are established, the burden shifts to the accused. Failure to prove legitimate income led to continuation of freezing and seizure.
The case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid business decision that enabled higher sale consideration.
Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘deficiency in service’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, compensation entitled to be awarded to the consumer.
Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching the NCLAT since claim of violation of principles of natural justice not established. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
In the absence of proper compliance with Section 65B and failure to establish a clear chain of custody, the digital evidence relied upon by the Revenue lacked legal admissibility and evidentiary value.
The court analysed whether the reason account blocked falls within the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the provision applies only when dishonour is linked to insufficient funds or lack of arrangement.
CESTAT Chennai held that export benefit cannot be denied unilaterally by the Customs authorities. Thus, unilateral denial of DEPB benefits by Customs authority not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
