In a recent ruling ITAT Mumbai have held that genuineness of sale and purchase of share through stock exchange platform, can not be doubted if AO failed to establish link between assesssee and report of investigation wing.
ITAT passed ex-parte order in absence of assessee and held that any assessment, whether it be first round or otherwise framed under section 153A without getting approval under section 153D of Act, is not sustainable in law.
These regulations do not specify any date by which the employee’s contribution/ subscription to the PF is to be deposited in the individual employee’s account under the Calcutta Port Trust Non-Contributory Provident Fund.
In a recent ruling ITAT Mumbai dismissed appeal filed by the revenue and confirmed order of the CIT (A) in treating the income/compensation received from the transaction in agricultural land as business income instead of income from other sources as treated by the AO.
AO also held that despite issuing notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), assessee did not comply with those, and AO made additions to the income found in the assessee’s account.
Assessee filed its return of income for the 2018-19 AY declaring a total of ₹12,33,640 and assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of “imports and exports”, and various notices were issued and served upon assessee.
Calcutta High Court held that rejection of candidature not justified since rejection was without any basis and beyond the terms and conditions of brochure governing selection process initiated by IOC.
The return of the assessee was taken for scrutiny assessment. The assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land of Rs. 1,41,43,038/- and claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act reinvestment in a residential house.
The offences u/s. 419, 420, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are covered under the definition of schedule offences as per Sections 2(1)(x) and 2(1)(y) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Two numbers of Writ Petitions were filed by the importer before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, challenging various notifications issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (‘DGFT’).
