Consistency over technicalities: ITAT Mumbai allowed actuarial pension provision as an ascertained liability, rejected mechanical disallowances, and held CBDT instructions cannot override the Income-tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that application for NIL withholding tax certificate rightly rejected since matter of taxability of fees for technical services [FTS] rendered from China for previous assessment years is already pending before ITAT. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that once additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted, penalty became infructuous. The ruling highlights the dependency of penalty on assessment findings.
Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves & Surplus in the Balance Sheet and the same has to be routed through the Profit & Loss Account to arrive at the correct book profits u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
ITAT held that absence of an irrevocability clause cannot justify rejection of 80G approval. The case was remanded to CIT(E) to reconsider in line with binding High Court ruling.
ITAT allowed additional evidence filed by the legal heir and remanded the matter to the AO for verification. The key takeaway is that justice requires giving opportunity where evidence was earlier unavailable.
Calcutta High Court held that municipal tax does not constitute rent hence default thereon cannot be reason for eviction. Further, decree of eviction set aside since reasonable requirement for the purpose of building or rebuilding not proved.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided affidavits, bank statements, and financials of contributors. The addition was deleted as the source stood satisfactorily explained.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that seizure of imported ‘Roasted Areca Nuts’ on the basis of contradictory CRCL reports is not justifiable since report failed to account for low moisture levels. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and detained goods are directed to be released.
