In re Asstt. Commr. of SGST (D-819) Vs. Arihant Enterprises (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Sec. 98(2) provides that the application shall not be admitted where the question raised is already pending under any of the provisions of this act. The term ‘any of the provisions of this act’ includes investigations proceeding under section 67. It is […]
Price Waterhouse & Co. Bangalore LLP & Ors. Vs SEBI (SAT Mumbai) SAT Held that Order of Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI debarring the PW firms to audit listed company on the ground of PW network or projecting it as a PW brand cannot be sustained. There is no doubt that there has been […]
M/s Ram Lal Bhasin Public School Vs CIT (ITAT Amritsar) For claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, the entity must be an University or other educational institute existing solely for educational purpose and not of the purposes of profit. In the present case it is not in dispute that the assessee is a school […]
ITO Vs Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha (ITAT Mumbai) We find that with regard to claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, this tribunal in quantum proceedings had granted deduction u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of payments made within the prescribed limitation period i.e payments made within one year prior to the […]
ACIT Vs Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah (ITAT Mumbai) The undisputed position that emerges is the fact that the property under consideration was subject matter of extensive litigation which ultimate got culminated into sale of the property by the assessee in terms of consent terms dated 03/01/2012 between the assessee and certain other parties. The assessee, […]
As allotment of property was final and payment of purchase consideration had been duly made before allotment, therefore, holding period of property had to be computed from the date of allotment, and not from the date of taking delivery of possession which was only a follow-up action.
The issue under consideration is whether Capital Gains will be applicable in case where Bank sold the property of group concern as it failed to repay the loan?
Gifts are normally made by relatives out of natural love and affection and do not necessarily require any particular occasion. Assessee had discharged his burden by furnishing necessary details before AO. In the absence of anything to show that the transactions were by way of money laundering,
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission orders M/s. Golden Peacock to refund 4,12,98,926/- with 12% interest for delayed possession. Case details.
A perusal of Section 94 shows that there is no power conferred upon the Central Government to make any Rules or Notifications for extraterritorial events; or in other words, for services rendered and consumed beyond the “taxable territory” i.e. beyond India. Obviously, the Act itself is not applicable to the territories other than India and therefore the Executives cannot have any power to make Rules for territories beyond India.
