ITAT Delhi held that denial of exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act not justified as loans are borrowed at higher rate solely for the benefit of the society and under the circumstances which are beyond the control of the assessee-society.
ITAT Indore held that there is no authority to deny exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) for non-filing return since 20th Proviso to section 10(23C) denying exemption for non-filing return u/s. 139(4C) came to statue from AY 2023-2024 only.
NCLT can also exercise inherent jurisdiction under Rule 11 in a case where NCLT is of the view that copy of the order need to be forwarded to the relevant statutory authorities, it can forward the copy for doing needful.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that issue of applicability of section 115JB to National Dairy Development Board is debatable and not a mistake apparent from record hence rectification order passed is beyond the scope of section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that goodwill arose from the excess of consideration over the net value of tangible assets transferred in amalgamation and was therefore a valid intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii).
CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is not leviable when goods are given on hire along with effective control and possession thereof. Accordingly, demand on hire charges dropped as equipments are given on hire with right of possession and effective control.
The assessee is public charitable trust established vide trust deed dated 1st September 2024 with the stated object to build, restore, renovate, and maintain places of worship, historical monuments, pilgrimage sites, and public places of faith and belief.
In response, the respondent bank clarified that such a request would be considered only after the appointment of a curator for the petitioners and that the closure of the savings account would proceed only by following due procedure.
The Petitioner was under the mistaken impression that only Input Tax Credit could be distributed through the ISD account and the cash deposit was not permissible for distribution.
Sikkim High Court held that in Budgetary Support Scheme though the claims are to be filed quarterly, however the amount of reimbursement of budgetary support has to be calculated on a monthly basis.
