ITAT Ahmedabad held that that the activities / services do not qualify as stewardship / shareholder activity. Further, assessee correctly determined Arm’s Length Price in respect of management fees by using Transaction Net Margin Method i.e. TNMM.
The assessing authority, therefore, disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant towards the purchase of paddy from the said persons and added this to the income declared by the appellant.
RP could not be blamed for having breached the IBC for the CoC to have approved the resolution plan of Parth with requisite majority share which action was taken by the CoC in the exercise of its commercial wisdom.
The Investigation Wing had carried out investigation with regard to the price manipulations and generation of bogus long term capital gains in number of stocks, classified as penny stocks.
Kerala High Court held that assessment and penalty order mentioning old address of the appellant are liable to be set aside as against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, petitioner directed to immediately update his current address and e-mail ID.
Delhi High Court held that telecommunication towers would not fall within the ambit of Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Thus, denial of input tax credit unsustainable in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of exemption u/s. 11 by CPC in the rectification petition not justified since the same was allowed in earlier proceeding and it is settled position of law that debatable issues cannot be done in rectification proceedings.
Kerala High Court remanded the matter back to Appellate Authority since fact that the grant of discount has no tax effect under CGST has not been considered. Accordingly, order quashed and restored back.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed revenue’s appeal by concluding that approach of CIT(A) in singularly dismissing each piece of evidence, we find, is totally incorrect. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter of bogus accommodation entry afresh.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in RTI Spinners Vs C.C.- Mundra considers pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E of the Customs Act. Appeals remanded for further review.
