Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
ITAT Ahmedabad held that clause (k) of Rule 6DD specifies that where payment for expenses are made by a person to an agent who is required to make payment in cash on behalf of such person, then rigours of section 40A(3) are not applicable.
CESTAT Delhi held that the intermediary does not include the person who supplies such goods or services or both on his own account. Thus, the person supplying the main supply on principal to principal basis cannot come within the ambit of “intermediary”.
ITAT Surat held that Assessing Officer is not entitled to admit or entertain additional claim during the assessment proceedings, however the appellate authority has such jurisdiction to admit such additional claim.
Madras High Court held that the Appellate Authority should have gone into the reasons adduced by the writ petitioner for non-filing of GSTR-3B return. In absence of the same, the impugned order cancelling GST registration set aside and matter remanded back to Appellate Authority for examination.
ITAT Pune held that if there was enquiry conducted by the AO even if the enquiry in inadequate there will be no occasion to the Commissioner to exercise the power of revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Assessee was entitled to set-off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against the dividend income as the non-obstante clause provided in Section 115BBD(1) covered both current year loss as well as brought forward business loss, therefore, Tata Industries was eligible for set off of current year business loss against the foreign dividend income received by it.
ITAT Delhi held that the main objective of the assesses is to carry on the business of letting out of properties and hence the income earned by the assessee from letting out of the property is assessable under the head Income from Business.
ITAT Hyderabad held that if the assessee is not entitled to claim the loss of investment as bad debts, the same cannot be claimed as business loss as per his sweet will.
ITAT Mumbai held that bad debts arising from credit card business would be part and parcel of loss arising in the course of banking business and hence liable as deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that loss on account of the Forward Contracts cannot be considered as speculative loss and hence loss on Forward Contracts is allowable as a deduction from the income chargeable to tax even if the Forward Contracts have not closed.
