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...
NCLT Mumbai held that application filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by Financial Creditor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Corporate Debtor is admitted as debt and default thereof proved.
In RCM there was no output tax liability because it was treated as exempt and, therefore, in tune with the objective of GST, credit of ITC could not be claimed in the absence of liability but same could be claimed by the recipient of service.
Calcutta High Court held that DRAT order dismissing appeal of MSME upheld since MSME did not avail of the facilities and allowed the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 to run its course, then it is not entitled to any protection.
CESTAT Chennai held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] has jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice [SCN] in the case of drawback. Accordingly, plea of appellant of DRI officers lacked jurisdiction failed.
Assessee filed a writ petition challenging the Reserve Bank of India’s decision to return his compounding application. The application was filed after an adjudication order had already been passed against him under FEMA.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that GST is not leviable on ocean freight charges, accordingly, refund of GST paid on ocean freight cannot be denied by applying period of limitation since payment of money cannot be treated as payment of tax.
State could not blacklist a company after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and that the new management could not be punished for the actions of the old management.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that section 17(4) of the Customs Act is not made for reopening or reviewing any issued final assessment order. Thus, adjudicating authority not empowered to review his final assessment order without statutory appeal.
NCLT Mumbai held that application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] admissible since default of debt due and payable is established and default is in excess of minimum amount stipulated under IBC.
Delhi High Court reduced the pre-deposit amount bearing in mind the financial constraints and held that the question as to whether the imported components constituted E-Rikshaw themselves shall also be adjudicated by the CESTAT. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
