Karnataka High Court held that exemption to an education institution with regard to payment of property tax is provided under section 94(1-A)(i) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the said exemption is absolute.
CESTAT Chennai held that as fixed facility charges (FFC charges) are not in the nature of considered received for providing supply of tangible goods. Service tax is not payable on the same.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance as per section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act sustained as amount of employees’ share of contribution of PF/ESI not paid within due date stipulated in the respective Act.
NCLAT Chennai rejected grant of condonation of delay in filing of the ‘Claim under Form-C’ as sufficient cause not shown and IBC is a time bound process.
ITAT Mumbai held that the disclosure made by the tax auditor in audit report in Form 3CD about the ‘Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)’ would now become indicative of a disallowance, hence provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act would get attracted.
ITAT Delhi held that Common Area Maintenance charges (CAM Charges) paid by the assessee are liable for 2% TDS u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act and not at 10% u/s 194I of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition unsustainable as assessee has proved the three ingredients engraved in section 68 of the Act and proved the satisfactory nature of the loan transactions. On the otherhand, AO has not brought any contrary material to show that loan received is bogus or accommodation entries.
ITAT Delhi held that the receipts from centralised service income are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS)/ Fees for included Services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of India-USA DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai’s decision in case of DCIT vs KEC International Limited, where a 0.6% arm’s length rate was established for corporate guarantee fees, influencing future transfer pricing adjustments.
In a recent case, Delhi High Court ruled that proviso to Section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is an exception for women, exempting them from satisfying the twin conditions of Section 45. The court held that sub-classifying women under different categories and applying twin conditions would violate Article 14 of Constitution. The applicant, accused in a complaint case related to the Unitech Group, was granted bail after undergoing extensive investigations and custody for over 20 months.
