Kerala High Court held that charges collected for provision of sophisticated medical beds for providing optimum nursing care to expecting mothers is liable to luxury tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976.
Tribunal in the case of Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO held that kaccha arahtias are concerned, the turnover does not include the sales effected on behalf of the principals and only the gross commission has to be considered for the purpose of 44AB.
ITAT Mumbai held that cash deposits were evidently business receipts, in absence of any other evidence of any other undisclosed source of income, the same cannot be considered as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, addition under section 68 liable to be set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that the amount given as share application money did not constitute a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). Thus, CIRP application u/s. 7 rightly rejected.
ITAT Surat held that rejection of application for regular approval of fund under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act as time barred not justified in terms of relaxation of time period as per CBDT Circular no. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024
Delhi High Court held that Assessing Officer cannot assess other incomes where no addition is made on account of reasons for which reassessment was initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The said business transaction was carried out between the period from 11.05.2019 to 13.10.2021, where an amount of Rs. 4,48,30,421 was said to be due to be paid to him.
During the assessment proceedings, AO provided many opportunities to the Assessee to explain the nature and source of deposits made during the demonization period, however, the Assessee did not gave any satisfactory explanation during the assessment proceedings.
ITAT Jaipur held that time limit of filling the application for recognition u/s. 80G of the Act has been extended by the Board. Accordingly, benefit extension provided and matter restored to file of CIT(E).
ITAT Bangalore held that no separate benchmarking of royalty payment required when the margin is accepted to be at arms length price (ALP) by the TPO. Thus, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
