Read the International Financial Services Centres Authority (Banking) (Amendment) Regulations, 2023 issued by the IFSCA. Stay updated on the latest amendments and provisions for banking units in IFSCs.
ITAT Delhi held that failure to call for DVO report and discrediting the valuation report of the assessee without substantial reasons is unsustainable and bad in law.
Delhi High Court held that as Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 doesn’t include ‘professional activity’ of lawyers as ‘commercial activity’. Accordingly, under the DMC Act there is no power to tax ‘professional activity’ carried out from residential building.
Karnataka High Court held that AO based on incorrect assumption treated the money collected by the trust as capitation fee under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act. In absence of any violation of KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act duly available.
Gauhati High Court held that the existence of an alternative relief would dissuade the Court from entertaining the writ petition. Constitutional Jurisdiction cannot be exercised in view of provisions for alternative remedy.
ITAT Chennai held that payment of rental or ocean freight for ships is covered by Article 8 of India-Korea DTAA. Accordingly, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS and therefore, disallowance invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order framed in the name of a non-existing entity is non-est and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, initiation of proceedings u/s 263 based on such assessment order is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that in view of provision of 47(v) of the Act the transaction of transfer of land from subsidiary to holding company is not covered u/s. 45 of the Act. Accordingly, when the transaction does not falls within ambit of section 45, then any claim of long term capital loss/profit cannot be allowed.
Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there was no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the Cenvat Credit could not be denied, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which was not existence in law.
ead the Order by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Disciplinary Committee) cautioning an Insolvency Professional regarding liquidation value discrepancies and the need to be careful in representing matters before AA and NCLAT. Disciplinary Committee concludes that if there were factual discrepancies affecting the distribution of the resolution plan, Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma should have filed an application before the Hon’ble NCLAT for rectification. The Committee advises Mr. Sharma to exercise caution when representing matters before AA and Hon’ble NCLAT.
