Vide Limited Liability Partnership (Second Amendment) Rules, 2023 MCA Amends LLP Form No. 3 – Information with regard to Limited Liability Partnership Agreement and changes, if any, made therein and LLP Form No. 4 (Notice of appointment, cessation, change in name/ address/designation of a Designated Partner or Partner and consent to become a Partner/Designated Partner) wef […]
Delhi High Court held that since no income chargeable to tax arose in the hands of the non-resident, as per the provisions of the Act, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) unjustified.
GST audits are being carried out by the department and notices are being issued impetuously, as we are nearing the last date to issue show cause notice for non-fraud cases of FY 2017-18. Out of the many audit points, demanding GST on personal guarantees given by Directors is one of the burning issues.
Madras High Court held that Credit note u/s 34 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 not required when goods were being returned without even being received by the recipient. Accordingly, detention of goods for non-issuance of Credit note unwarranted.
A corporate guarantee is a contract between a corporate entity or individual and a debtor. In this contract, the guarantor takes responsibility for the debtor’s obligations, such as repaying a debt.
ITAT Delhi held that software licence fee received as reimbursement, in absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, is not taxable. Accordingly, addition towards the same deleted.
ITAT Bangalore remanded the matter back to AO for fresh consideration as assessee didn’t proved existence of business exigency in making payment in cash and AO didn’t carried necessary enquiry before making addition u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
NCLAT Delhi requested the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt of India to get detailed enquiry/ investigation by an appropriate authority/agency as in number of court proceedings the parties are coming with fabricated document.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained expenditure merely on the basis of suspicion without any other support is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act justified as assessee trust having multiple objects doesn’t satisfy the condition of ‘solely for educational purposes’.
