Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
The ITAT Ahmedabad addressed the jurisdiction of the AO over a corporate assessee with income exceeding Rs. 30 Lakhs in metro cities. The tribunal confirmed that income, as per Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, includes losses. Referring to legal precedents, it was established that income encompasses losses. Therefore, the CBDT Instruction on jurisdiction applied to cases of both income and losses over Rs. 30 Lakhs. The DCIT's issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was deemed appropriate. The rejection of the assessee's books of account and estimation of profit at 10% of total receipts were upheld. The assessee's failure to provide proper accounts and evidence led to the rejection. The AO's estimation of income at 10% was considered reasonable, given the nature of the assessee's work and the prescribed rate under the Act. The tribunal declined to interfere with the AO's income estimation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad addressed the jurisdiction of the AO over a corporate assessee with income exceeding Rs. 30 Lakhs in metro cities. The tribunal confirmed that income, as per Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, includes losses. Referring to legal precedents, it was established that income encompasses losses. Therefore, the CBDT Instruction on jurisdiction applied to cases of both income and losses over Rs. 30 Lakhs. The DCIT's issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was deemed appropriate. The rejection of the assessee's books of account and estimation of profit at 10% of total receipts were upheld. The assessee's failure to provide proper accounts and evidence led to the rejection. The AO's estimation of income at 10% was considered reasonable, given the nature of the assessee's work and the prescribed rate under the Act. The tribunal declined to interfere with the AO's income estimation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.