ITAT Chennai held that benefit under section 54F of the Income Tax Act not deniable for technical lapse like non-registration of agreement to sale.
ITAT Jaipur held that CIT(Exemption) not justified in denying the registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act as the foundation/ trust duly supplied all the desired information as per the query letter.
ITAT Pune held that amount refunded back to the employer on account of breach of non-compete agreement by the employee cannot be construed as salary for the purpose of charging income tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that as right to use the software was granted after 16/05/2008 the same is leviable to service tax under Information Technology Software Service.
ITAT Delhi held that shortfall in interest adjusted from principal amount on principle of first appropriation towards interest before principal. Then, assessee being in lending business, the shortage towards principal is allowable as bad debt.
ITAT Indore held that when one possible view has been taken by AO the same cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act based on mere change of opinion is unsustainable in law.
Bombay High Court held that material on record doesnt satisfy that all the steps for recovering the tax dues from the company, accordingly, action under section 179 of the Income Tax Act against the directors for recovering the tax dues is unjustified.
Gujarat High Court held that order of cancellation of GST Registration passed without determination of the amount which is to be paid by the petitioner-assessee is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Pune held that as on the date of agreement, the building was not constructed, the date of possession will be considered as actual date of purchase for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of any finding that non-recovery of tax due from the company can be attributed to any gross-negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on the part of the petitioner, no order could have been made u/s 179(1) of the Income Tax Act.
