Stay updated with the critical deadlines in July 2023. Learn about the income tax return (ITR) filing, EPFO pension contribution, TDS submission, and PAN-Aadhaar linking. Ensure compliance to avoid penalties.
ITAT Lucknow sets aside additions made for cash deposits during demonetization in Shiva Goods Carrier Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, orders de novo proceedings under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty demand on semi-finished goods and finished goods not sustainable as goods are exported on payment of duty under section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
ITAT Mumbai held that land was transferred to the builder/ developer at the time of execution of Development Agreement i.e. 18/01/2008 and accordingly, the same cannot be taxed in the year of agreement of sale i.e. A.Y. 2010-2011.
ITAT Chandigarh held that receipts of the assessee trust from its activities of sale of plots, flats and commercial booths and also its income earned form non-construction fee, transfer fee, penal interest and compounding fee, etc., are held to be entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO was correct in concluding that the rate at which loan is taken by the Appellant cannot be taken as internal CUP to benchmark the loan given by the Appellant to its AE as there is a difference in credit rating of the Appellant and its AE.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee failed furnish any evidences to prove that there are negotiations between assessee and AEs with regard to marketing strategy, sales targets, credit period, etc. Accordingly, TPO/AO has rightly bench marked payment of agency commission as ‘nil’.
Calcutta High Court held that if a husband supplies the consideration money for acquiring property in the name of his wife, such fact does not necessarily imply benami transaction.
CESTAT Kolkata held that goods imported separately by two different importers cannot be clubbed for classification purpose. Goods imported by appellants not in CDK condition cannot be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 87038040.
CESTAT Chennai held that when Form-H has been produced to establish that the goods have been exported the value of such clearances would not be included in the aggregate value so as to deny the SSI exemption.
