ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment sustained excel sheet and whatsapp chat are incriminating material found and seized during the course of search action.
High Court and held that the position in law was that the debt ‘due and payable’, when falls within the four corners of clause (a) to Section 530(1) of the Companies Act, would be treated as preferential payment, but it would not override and be given preference over the payments of overriding preferential creditors covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act.
Exploring the case of Karmaxx Infotech vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) in the Madras High Court about GST registration cancellation and legal compliance.
ITAT Bangalore held that PCIT duly invoked provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order was passed by AO without carrying out necessary enquiry/verification.
CCI finds no evidence of profiteering by Friends Land Developers for Anandam Square project. CGST Act, 2017’s Anti-Profiteering provisions not violated.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. (CCI) Introduction: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recently concluded an investigation into allegations of profiteering against ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. The investigation, led by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), was conducted following directives from the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA). Detailed Analysis: 1. The […]
Pearlite Real Properties vindicated in the profiteering case by the Competition Commission of India after a comprehensive review. Details of the decision inside.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of action u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of shortfall in TDS on year end provisions reported in Form 3CD of the assessee cannot be faulted. Accordingly, matter remanded to AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(E) failed to examine the aspects as directed by the High Court in the matter of application for registration under section 10(23C)(via). Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(E).
CESTAT Kolkata held that duty demand alleging overvaluation cannot be sustained as authority didn’t considered details of Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) which establishes full realization of value of export invoices from overseas importer.
