Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Transfer of 7000 equity shares - prohibitory order u/s 45MB (2) of RBI Act - Admitted possession of 4000 shares certificates and transfer deeds by Anoop Jain - Issue of consideration for 4000 shares - Anoop Jain relied on Delhi stock exchange register for payment of consideration - Appellants objected discrepancy in timeline of sale by appellant No. 1 and purchase by respondents, lack of proof of consideration payment - Matter remanded to Company Court to inquire when 4000 shares sold to Anoop Jain, 1500, 900 and 600 shares sold to Murari Saraf, Banwari Lal Saraf and Bihari Lal Saraf respectively by appellant No. 1, and whether consideration paid - If established appellant No. 1 divested rights before 09.04.1997 and respondents paid consideration, impugned order to follow - Appeal disposed by way of remand.
Transfer of 7000 equity shares - prohibitory order u/s 45MB (2) of RBI Act - Admitted possession of 4000 shares certificates and transfer deeds by Anoop Jain - Issue of consideration for 4000 shares - Anoop Jain relied on Delhi stock exchange register for payment of consideration - Appellants objected discrepancy in timeline of sale by appellant No. 1 and purchase by respondents, lack of proof of consideration payment - Matter remanded to Company Court to inquire when 4000 shares sold to Anoop Jain, 1500, 900 and 600 shares sold to Murari Saraf, Banwari Lal Saraf and Bihari Lal Saraf respectively by appellant No. 1, and whether consideration paid - If established appellant No. 1 divested rights before 09.04.1997 and respondents paid consideration, impugned order to follow - Appeal disposed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
