The ITAT Chandigarh held that no TDS was deductible where professional fees paid to each payee were below the statutory threshold. It also deleted the branch stock addition after finding that the unsold stock represented an amount recoverable from the branch and not taxable income.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure incurred in India without any agreement or arrangement with the foreign AE cannot be treated as an international transaction. It also directed the AO to allow set-off of brought-forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation in accordance with law.
The ITAT held that registration under Section 12AB could not be rejected without identifying a specific “specified violation” under the statutory framework. It remanded the matter for fresh examination after finding the order lacked clear and reasoned findings.
ITAT Mumbai held that the CPC could not withdraw an already allowed Section 10AA deduction through rectification without recording reasons. The Tribunal restored the deduction after finding no material justifying the action.
The Calcutta High Court held that the PCIT was not authorised to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC for AY 2024-25 as the applicable CBDT circular covered only earlier assessment years. The Court quashed the order and directed the petitioner to approach the CBDT.
The Kerala High Court held that Section 144B does not require issuance of a draft assessment order to an ordinary assessee. It ruled that the requirement applies only to an eligible assessee as defined under the Income Tax Act.
The NCLT held that a DRT Recovery Certificate provides a fresh cause of action, making the Section 7 application filed within three years maintainable. It admitted the CIRP after finding that financial debt and default were established.
The NCLT held that consent letters alone were insufficient for dispensing with the secured creditors’ meeting. It directed the meeting to be convened while granting dispensation for other stakeholder meetings where affidavit-based consents were available.
The Kerala High Court held that although the NCLT order was recorded as a consent order, the petitioner could challenge the portion imposing ₹1 lakh per day for non-compliance. The Court granted time to file an appeal before the appellate tribunal.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution. The appellate authority must adjudicate every appeal on merits and provide reasons as required under Section 250(6).
