The Tribunal held that where interest-free funds exceed investments, no disallowance is warranted. It applied the presumption that investments are made from own funds.
The authority penalized the company for delayed filing of MGT-6 beyond the prescribed timeline. It held that even a short delay constitutes a violation under Section 89(7).
The authority penalized the company for failing to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a resolution. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties under Section 117(2).
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The matter concerns two appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015–16 and 2019–20. Both appeals arise from assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since […]
The Bombay High Court held that assessment proceedings conducted in the name of a company that ceased to exist after amalgamation are void. All related notices and orders were set aside. The ruling confirms that jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity.
The ITAT upheld ₹90 lakh addition as the assessee failed to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The ruling emphasizes the burden of proof on taxpayers in cash credit cases.
A massive delay in filing BEN-2 for significant beneficial ownership led to maximum penalties. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance attracts strict penal consequences.
The ITAT held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers when the same issue is already pending before the appellate authority. The case involved share transaction additions treated as penny stock.
The Supreme Court declined to recall its earlier order, effectively upholding the High Court ruling that TDS was not applicable on payments for imported Business Information Reports. The decision affirms reliance on consistent AAR rulings.
The Bombay High Court upheld ITAT’s ruling that payments for Business Information Reports did not attract TDS under Section 195. The decision relied on consistent AAR rulings on identical facts.
