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...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the R...
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 : 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...
Supreme Court held that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail. Accordingly, Taxation Entry No.61 is relatable to ‘starch’ of any kind whereas Exemption Entry No.8 relates to products of ‘millet’. Hence, maize starch is covered by taxation entry and not by exemption entry.
CESTAT Chennai held that any refund claim is not maintainable in absence of any challenge to the assessment order as the refund authority cannot assume the role of an adjudicating / assessing authority.
CESTAT Mumbai held that section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, or any Rules framed thereunder, is not of relevance to the rough diamonds as the same are leviable to NIL duty as per the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
ITAT Delhi held that direction by CIT(A) to AO to take appropriate action for not deducting TDS from the perquisite in respect of interest free loans given to directors and to take appropriate action to tax the perquisites u/s. 17 of the Act is in excess of jurisdiction conferred by section 251 hence deleted.
CESTAT Kolkata held that for the purpose of sub heading 27101920, the “light oils and preparations” are those of which 90% or more by volume (including losses) distil at 210 degree Celsius. Goods not meeting the requirements as specified under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 cannot be classified under CTH 27101920.
NCLT held that documents being forged or not cannot be determined by the National Company Law Tribunal as National Company Law Tribunal is not a forum for adjudication of fraud.
ITAT Delhi held that benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act available even if capital gain is invested in purchasing more than one residential houses within stipulated time limit.
Bombay High Court held that exercise of power under Article 226 untenable as remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal available to the petitioner challenging forfeiture of earnest money deposit.
It is felt that enormous powers are conferred on Banks or Public Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act, 2002 from the stage of determination of outstanding due, entertaining objections, taking possession of the property and selling the property through private treaty at times and in public auctions very often. The borrower too has got a right to question the illegality if any on the part of the Bank in proceeding against the ‘secured asset’ under the Act.
I strongly believe that implementing the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 making a good balance between the object and the interests of the borrower is a very complicated exercise. There are so many judgments on the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and still certain areas remain complicated. I would like to share a typical case presented to me in the recent past and the facts of the case are as follows:
