The appellants before this Court were originally engaged by the Central Water Commission on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No.1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No.2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999.
In this regard, the petitioner was guided by Central Board of Direct Taxes (“ CBDT” for short) Circular No. 7 of 2018, dated 20 December 2018 for the A.Y. 2016-2017 issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act.
AO had made the addition with the observation that no response was received from assessee. Based on that, he proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 based on the information available on his record.
Assessee had filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring ₹20,89,430. The case was scrutinized for capital gains from agricultural land sales and cash deposits during demonetization.
Delhi High Court held that the interest received on borrowed funds, which were temporarily held in interest bearing deposit, is a part of the capital cost and is required to be credited to Capital Work-in-Progress.
A person residing in USA desirous of transferring money to an individual or an entity in India, approaches a branch or an outlet of the assessee and transfers the money in USDs, together with the charges prescribed by the respondent-assessee.
CESTAT Bangalore held that no time limit has been prescribed under the statutory provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act hence circular no. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 cannot prescribe particular time period which is not provide u/s. 149.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of claim under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act justified since assessee is engaged in only collection and transportation of solid wastes and is not engaged in operating and maintaining sold waste management system.
Delhi District Court allowed the application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), however, imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on DRI due to 17 years of delay in filing of a complain.
Competition Commission of India examines clauses of Coal India Limited’s 2022 Scheme, finding no violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act.
