ITAT Delhi held that fees for providing Spa Consultancy falls under the category of ‘Independent Personal Service’ and hence was not taxable in India and therefore assessee was not required to deduct TDS. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) deleted.
Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribing pecuniary jurisdictions of the district, state and national commissions on the basis of value of goods and services paid as consideration.
ITAT Jaipur held that trust incurring more expenditure than income doesn’t debar it from benefit of exemption u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in respect of income admittedly applied for charitable purpose. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the enhanced rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 87/2017-Cus. dated 17.11.2017 is not applicable here since notification was published in Official Gazette on 20.11.2017 and date of entry inwards are prior to 20.11.2017.
Patna High Court held that taxpayer will not be eligible for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 [DTVSV Scheme] against notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act since dispute tax is not ascertainable.
Jharkhand High Court held that order solely based on the judgement which has been later on over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court requires interference and hence the order passed by ITAT is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Patna High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger justified since there is sufficient material before department to satisfy with regard to necessity of passing an order under rule 86-A(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
ITAT Delhi held that in absence of original certificate, benefit of jewellery and ornaments declared in VDIS Scheme 1997 is granted based on affidavit and valuation report of the jewellery declared under VDIS.
Calcutta High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and passing of penalty order thereof in the name of a non-existent entity (i.e. dissolved HUF) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act towards bogus purchases cannot be sustained merely for failure on the part of 3rd party in not responding to the summons. Addition set aside since genuineness of transaction proved.
