CESTAT Mumbai held that when cenvat credit of only that quantity of input is availed which was intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods, there is no question of invoking provisions of rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
ITAT Chennai held that as per Sec.9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, salary income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India only if it is earned in India in respect of services rendered in India. Hence, salary income as accrued to the assessee for work performed in UK would not be taxable in India.
NCLT Mumbai held that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the management/ownership of the Corporate Debtor shall be considered as fresh, even if the directors/promoters of the Corporate Debtor (MSME) remain the same.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the provisions of service to the overseas entity by an entity situated abroad does not merit liability under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, set aside tax recovery from M/s Singapore Airlines as deemed provider of online information data base access or retrieval service.
CESTAT Chennai held that when goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.
Overseas Insurer applying for opening of LO should have a financially sound track record. A profit making track record during the immediately preceding three financial years in the home country and net worth of not less than USD 65 million shall be the minimum requirement for applying for opening a Liaison office in India.
ITAT Bangalore held that Share Application Money should not be included in the value of investments. Accordingly, for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the Share Application Money should be excluded.
Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Deduction is allowable when interest is derived from credit provided to its members by co-operative credit societies
PCIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (Delhi High Court) In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT erred in confirming the order of the CIT(A) and failed to appreciate the fact that the royalty payment is excessive and not at arm’s length on consideration of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (‘AMP’) […]
Delhi HC quashes order under Section 148A(d), remands to Assessing Officer. Petitioner to provide sale/purchase deed for fresh decision.
