ITAT Chennai held that as per assigning reasons for delay in filing audit report under section 44AB is venial technical breach and accordingly penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim was rejected on sole ground of non-production of original documents. However, as original documents are misplaced, as per provisions of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, attested copies of invoices should be considered as proof of production of document.
Orissa High Court held that Chokad sold to NALCO not being an industrial input. Accordingly, Entry 74 of Part-II of Schedule B of the OVAT Act attracting 4% VAT doesnot apply to the same.
Delhi High Court directed Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) to re-consider the high-pitched assessment as gross profit applied is 12.5% as against historical gross profit of 1.06%. Coercive measures against the petitioner instructed to be kept on hold.
ITAT Mumbai held that rental income from giving out commercial properties for compensation as per Memorandum of Association (MOA) is to be treated as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from house property’.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that only profit and gains derived from the incidental business of charitable-trust would qualify as income for computing statutorily allowed accumulation of 15% in terms of section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act restricted to only for one floor (3rd floor) as assessee failed to establish that two floors (3rd and 4th floor) is one residential house.
Abinash Kumar Singh Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court held that provisions of section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 opens with a non-obstante clause. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s 129 justifiable on transporting goods without a valid e-way bill. Facts- The petitioner […]
ITAT Delhi held that amount received on account of business support services cannot be treated as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS) under Article 12(5) of India Netherlands DTAA and hence addition towards the same unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that share application money received in cash for allotment of shares would not amount either to a loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
