CIT Vs Mahavir Irrigation Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC)- In this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.
Amit Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkatta) - Assessee made a foreign trip to Roam, Dubai and Kathmandu and claimed expenses at Rs.1,45,151/-. Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the evidence and also business purposes. Assessee stated that foreign tour was for surveying interiors of foreign hotels and resorts at the request of his client Arneja Creation & Hotels (P) Ltd.
CIT Vs DCM Limited (Delhi HC)- Whether a mere proposal for enhancement of property tax would result in crystallization of liability qua that portion of rateable value which was sought to be enhanced. There can be no dispute that liability does not cease to exist merely because the quantification of the liability is deferred. From the facts ascertainable from the records
Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) - Provision for warranty stood crystallized as soon as the sale was made which a customer would like to be fulfilled within the warranty period and is at the cost of an assessee ‘sgoodwili Therefore, the residual amount purported to have been held by the AO as an excess provision cannot be considered as a contingent provision and not an ascertained liability.
FM Pranab Mukherjee on Friday moved a bill in the Lok Sabha to amend the Customs Act to validate the showcause notices given by different officials during the past several years. The bill, which seeks to validate notices rendered invalid by the Supreme Court on technical ground, will be taken up for discussion and passage next week.
ACIT Vs. Oxford Softeck Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- If it is supposed that all the conditions are fulfilled but then also the same cannot be added as income in the hands of the payer company as such amount can be added only to the income of a person as dividend who is a shareholder to whom such loan and advances made. Keeping in view these facts and the aforementioned case law relied upon by ld. CIT(A) and also the provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion that addition in the hands of the assessee company has rightly been deleted by ld. CIT(A) and to that extent we uphold his order and it is h
Ankur Cm Food Products (Guj) Ltd vs Dy.CIT (ITAT Rajkot)- Ground No.2 of appeal of revenue is in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.7,01,1 19 on account of excess stock of packing material. During the course of survey at factory premises empty bags and empty pouches numbers 1,02,98,914 were found against the book stock of 83,39,051. There was excess stock of packing material of 19,59,863 pouches valuing Rs.7,01,1 19. In the statement, Shri Ashok Parekh, director of the company while answering question No.3 9 stated that packing material of outside parties for which the assessee is doing job
Society For The Small & Medium Exporters Vs DIT (ITAT Delhi)- in a case where the objects of the society may be charitable, but, in the absence of carrying on those activities despite the fact that the activities which were carried on were for the purpose of generating income, the society is not entitled for registration for that year. Therefore, it is held that for assessment year 2008-09 and for subsequent years in which the assessee does not carry out charitable activity, the assessee has been rightly refused to get benefit of registration as charitable institution.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has simplified procedures under MCA-21 to enable registration of a company within 24 to 48 hours where there is no difficulty about availability of name etc. The various elements of this process are;
The Competition Commission of India has been constituted under Section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002 as amended in 2007.
The Competition Commission of India consists of a Chairperson and not less than two and not more than six other Members. Under Section 18 of the Competition Act, the functions of the Commission inter-alia are to eliminate practices having adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants, in markets in India.
Corporate Frauds
There is no verified information available to suggest that the cases of corporate frauds are on the increase.
Number of prosecutions filed for the violations of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 for the last three years are as under:-
The report submitted by the Expert Group on Valuation Professionals Bill including the comments received in this regard from the stakeholders are under consideration of this Ministry and No definite time frame can be given at this stage.
