Explore the details and implications of the Vikash Daga vs ACIT case, where ITAT Delhi upheld the right to claim foreign tax credit under Section 90, despite procedural anomalies. Understand the balance between procedural norms and substantive rights in the context of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT upheld the right of an individual to use personal savings, including those from a late spouse, for the repayment of a bank loan, and dismissed the claim that such actions constitute unexplained investment.
CESTAT Hyderabad in case of Regency Ceramics Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Puducherry examines applicability of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and benefit of remission for goods lost due to fire or arson.
In the recent landmark decision, CESTAT Ahmedabad has allowed Cenvat Credit on sugar cess paid as CVD on raw sugar imports, favoring Renuka Sugars Limited. This ruling, echoing several previous judgements, clarifies the position of cess as excise duty.
CESTAT Chennai held that differential duty not payable as there is no contravention of Valuation Rules as an important part of the machine sold has been replaced with a less advanced component, slight reduction in the value of the machine sold is found to be normal.
ITAT Visakhapatnam in case of Vishnu Srinivasa Rao Kakarla Vs ITO clarifies that AO cannot travel beyond his jurisdiction to verify cash withdrawals when limited scrutiny was for verifying cash deposits.
Detailed review of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in favor of the assessee, Tarik Tondon, where the reassessment order was cancelled due to lack of verification of the information which initiated the reopening.
ITAT Pune in case of Rajendra Supadu Jadhav Vs DCIT allows section 54F deduction based on date of assignment deed for transfer of lease rights in MIDC plots.
The recent ITAT Delhi ruling in the Shantiniketan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT case allows high-interest payments under commercial expedience, refuting disallowance under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi overturns an ex-parte assessment passed under Section 144, citing insufficient opportunity for the assessee. The case is returned to the AO for a re-examination in compliance with the law.
