ITAT noted that Interest income was earned on NSC, fixed deposit/certificate of bank as a result of a mandatory business requirement as per the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, the interest earned from these deposits was indeed a business income, making it eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
ITAT Delhi in Manveer Singh Vs ITO case emphasised requirement of obtaining bank statement before issuing a reassessment notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act on alleged cash deposits based on AIR information even, leading to deletion of income tax addition.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that deposit of 10% of the penalty shall have no effect on the order of ‘debarment’ passed against the Appellant(s) under Section 132(4)(c). Order of ‘debarment’ shall continue to operate unless an order is passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
A ruling from the CESTAT Chennai holds that the manufacture of non-marketable sugar syrup is not subject to excise duty, setting a new precedent in tax law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that waste or rubbish, which is thrown up in the course of manufacture, cannot be said to be a produce of manufacture and cannot be said to be exigible to excise duty. Hence, sale of Ferric Oxide which emerged through chemical reaction of Waste Pickle Liquor is not liable to any duty.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee being a corporate assessee and subjected to statutory audits cannot be done in a light manner. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO for re-adjudication.
ITAT Panaji held that payment of interest on loan taken for paying compensation to the family members of the assessee pursuant to an arbitral award on family settlement has nothing to do with LTCG on sale of the said capital asset. Accordingly, payment of such interest cannot be claimed as deduction u/s 48.
CESTAT Kolkata held that there was no proposal to demand service tax under ‘Cargo Handling Service’ in the Notice, however, in the impugned order the adjudicating authority classified the services under ‘Cargo Handling Service’. Hence, adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the scope of the Notice, which is legally not sustainable.
The Karnataka High Court dismisses an appeal involving Manipal Finance Corporation Limited due to monetary limitations, based on Circular No.17 of 2019 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
PCIT Vs Anuj Bansal (Delhi High Court)Approval Under Section 153D Given Without Considering Assessment Records and Seized Material Invalid and Not Curable Under Section 292B of Income Tax Act, 1961
