Pune ITAT set aside a CIT(E) order, ruling that a wrong clause in Form 10AB isn’t fatal. Directs CIT(E) to allow rectification & reconsider 12AB registration/80G approval.
Pune ITAT set aside a CIT(E) revision against PYC Gymkhana, ruling the AO’s view was plausible since business receipts were below the 20% limit in Section 2(15) Proviso (ii).
Delhi ITAT ruled that Pratt & Whitney’s overseas aircraft engine repair is not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as it fails the DTAA’s “make-available” test. The ₹242 Cr demand was deleted.
Pune ITAT set aside a PCIT’s Section 263 revisionary order against Ravindra Chavan, ruling the “Hear the Other Side” rule was breached by relying on un-confronted material.
Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly assailing validity of final assessment order dated 30.06.2022 on the ground of limitation. It is contested that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) issued directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act on 23.03.2022, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed final assessment order on 23.06.2022.
NCLAT Delhi held that penalty as imposed by Competition Commission of India [CCI] on account of bid-rigging in soil testing tenders invited by Development of Agriculture, Government of Utter Pradesh against several companies and directors upheld.
Madras High Court modified conditions for provisional release of PVC Coated Fabric [goods involved in misclassified and undervalued] and directed payment of duty; payment of 50% of differential duty and execution of bond for specified amount.
ITAT Delhi held that provision of section 54F of the Income Tax Act are beneficial provision and the same has to be applied as per the peculiar situation of each case. Here, exemption u/s. 54F granted in spite of delay in construction of residential property since it was beyond the control of the assessee.
CBDT Notification 150/2025 grants income tax exemption to the Jhansi Development Authority under Section 10(46A), effective from Assessment Year 2025-26.
Supreme Court held that the Successful Resolution Applicant [SRA] cannot be forced to deal with claims that are not a part of the Request for Resolution Plan [RfRP] issued in terms of Section 25 of the IBC or a part of its Resolution Plan.
