Assessee was approached by Financial Creditor of FR Tech Innovations Private Limited (CD) for proposing the name of assessee as IRP in the company petition to be filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 in the NCLT, Mumbai Bench by the FR Tech Innovations Private Limited.
Explore the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on penalty notices under Income Tax Act in CIT vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows. Learn about specificity requirements and key findings.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. clarifies Section 44, emphasizes specificity in penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c).
Since the legislature vested the discretion to extend the timeframe solely in the AO, he could not have abdicated that function and confined his role to only making a recommendation to the CIT. CIT had no role in extending the timeframe as the AO was in seisin of the assessment proceedings.
Explore Bombay High Court’s landmark ruling favoring Sinochem India against the Union of India. Analysis of chemical import dispute, court observations, and implications.
Recent Mumbai Tribunal ruling reaffirms the legitimacy of fair market valuation in Angel Tax cases. Detailed analysis of PNP Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT case.
Explore the Kerala High Court ruling in Latha vs. T V Sahadevan case, stating that independent contractors are not considered employees under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (ECA). Understand the implications and distinctions between contractors and employees.
Delhi High Court’s decision in Sethi Sons (India) vs Asst. Commissioner, allowing belated refund applications due to technical glitches. Analysis of the case and its implications.
Madras High Court, in the case of Annamalai Bus Transports P Ltd. vs PCIT, has directed the CIT (Appeals) to expedite the appeal filed by the assessee within 60 days. The court noted procedural irregularities and the violation of principles of natural justice in the penalty proceedings, emphasizing the absence of cash transactions.
Madras High Court, in the case of Anamallais Bus Transports P Ltd vs. PCIT, has prima facie set aside penalty proceedings under Section 271-E of the Income Tax Act. This article explores the court’s view, emphasizing no cash transactions and directing the Appellate Authority to review the appeal without pre-deposit.
