CESTAT Delhi held that granting “call option” is not an activity of rendering service. Thus, appellant has wrongly been held to have been a service provider while receiving “call option fee”.
Rajasthan HC dismisses petition challenging 18% GST on samosa and kachori, directs Sodhani Sweets to approach the Appellate Authority for remedy.
Ministry of Consumer Affairs invites e-tenders for concurrent auditor services for NAFED and NCCF branches. Submission from August 17 to September 16, 2024.
ITAT Pune restored the assessment order as assessee neither filed any evidence nor provided material in an attempt to discharge the onus cast upon it in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Rajasthan HC upholds penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained cash deposits after withdrawals. Appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law involved.
ITAT Delhi held that the condition of make available was not satisfied for services when provided by assessee did not enabled the AEs to apply the technology independently. Thus, technical service provided to AEs not taxable.
ITAT Pune directed addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loans as appellate deliberately withhold information from NFAC and NFAC failed to examine the nature of transaction and passed order in perfunctory manner.
ITAT Pune rules in favor of Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe, deleting addition of cash deposits during demonetization, explained as proceeds from a gold loan.
RBI revises NBFC-P2P lending guidelines, clarifying provisions to prevent misuse and ensure compliance. Key changes include fund transfer rules and disclosure requirements.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable in absence of wilful intention on the part of the assessee to conceal income since all the errors in original return was rectified vide revised return.
