NCLT Delhi held that resolution plan of corporate debtor Dev Versha Publication Private Limited submitted by resolution professional is approved since the same was approved by 100% voting share of CoC.
Bombay High Court held that Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund is a deemed dealer as per Explanation to section 2(8) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 [MVAT Act] and hence liable for payment of tax.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that fresh assessment is necessary in case of taxability of interest earned from Fixed Deposit from compensation received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. Thus, matter restored for fresh assessment.
Delhi High Court held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the filing of a cross-objection. Thus, cross objection would not be maintainable.
In the present case, recovery or repayment of fraudulent income does not qualify as an allowable expense. Allowing deductions for recovery of fraudulent income would contradict the legislative intent of the Income-tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as per the provisions of Section 167B of the Income Tax Act, Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) is applicable on entire income of AOP if any one member of the AOP is taxable at a rate higher than MMR.
Vide the present appeal it is mainly contesting that when a cell phone is sold along with a charger, there is only one Maximum Retail Price (MRP) stated on the packaging and therefore, Entry 28 has to be read in the context of the said facts.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating transaction as bogus merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and probability is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee sold two trademarks “Coldarin” and “Raricap”. The gains accrued on the transfer of both these capital assets gave rise to income chargeable to tax under the head “Capital Gains”.
ITAT Hyderabad held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has not earned any dividend income. Thus, when there is no dividend income, the provisions of section 14A are not applicable.
