ITAT Ahmedabad held that the provision of section 50C of Act cannot be made applicable to transaction of capital assets transferred by assessee to a partnership firm by way capital contribution. Such transaction falls under the provision of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Read Gujarat High Court’s recent ruling in PCIT vs. Jigar Jashwantlal Shah case regarding taxability of allotted shares under Section 56(2)(viic) of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that the benefit under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is also available in respect of expenditure on clinical trials outside the approved in-house R&D facility.
Delhi High Court restored the matter to the Appellate Authority as refund claim was rejected without considering the material that establish that input supplies in respect of which ITC was claimed were in respect of export.
ITAT Delhi held that as lower authority made ex-parte addition towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act matter restored to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication giving last opportunity to assessee to explain source of investment.
ITAT Pune held that the excess income declared during the course of survey proceedings cannot be treated as unexplained income, but, the same is treated as business income.
Ensure a comprehensive Director’s Report for FY 2022-23 with our detailed checklist covering key aspects such as financial highlights, reserves disclosure, dividends, changes in business nature, material changes, director details, board meetings, compliance with secretarial standards, risk management, CSR, audit committee composition, fraud reporting, and more.
Read about Kerala High Court’s verdict in EVM Passenger Cars India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, highlighting importance of GST document compliance during goods transportation.
PFRDA introduces NPS Tier II Default Scheme exclusively for Government Sector Subscribers, offering flexibility, easy withdrawals, and seamless transfers. Learn more.
MCA imposes a Rs. 10 Lakh penalty on Solargridx Ventures Private Limited and its Directors for violating Sections 42(2) and 42(7) of Companies Act 2013.
