Supreme Court held that Article 3 of the Constitution of India provides that Parliament may by law form new States and alter the areas, boundaries or names of the existing States (which includes Union Territory).
Supreme Court held that employees who secured VRS benefits and left the service of MSFC voluntarily during this period, stand on a different footing. They cannot claim parity with those who worked continuously, discharged their functions, and thereafter superannuated.
Ajay Engineering and Agricultural Equipment Company Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT Pune held that AO did not specifically discuss the five issues in the assessment order, however, assessment order does not satisfy the second condition of being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Simply non-discussion of an issue in assessment order does not render […]
ITAT Allahabad held that allowable limit as CBDT circular dated 11th May 1994 is the gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 grams per married lady, 250 grams per unmarried lady and 100 grams per male member of the family. Accordingly, no addition to that extent on account of unexplained investment in jewellery can be sustained.
ITAT Indore held that penalty under section 271D and section 271E are not attracted in case of loan given. Accordingly, penalty proceeding imposing penalty u/s 271D/ 271E of the Income Tax Act in case of loan given is invalid.
ITAT Panaji held that the only requirement under the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) is that an interest income or dividend income should be earned by a co-operative society from another co- operative society. Section 80P does not make a distinction between income earned on long term investments and short term investments
Delhi High Court noted that delays on the part of the respondent-department in processing the pending claims for refund result in unnecessary burden of interest on the ex-chequer. Accordingly, court directed the Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes to ensure that all pending refund claims are processed as expeditiously as possible.
Madras High Court held that assessment order passed without considering important submission by the petitioner is a non-speaking order and against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the assessment order is quashed and remanded back for fresh consideration.
Kerala High Court held that after participating in a tender process, bidder cannot turn around and challenge the conditions in the bid document. As the bid amount was including GST, bidder-petitioner cannot claim the GST amount in addition to the amount bided.
Bombay High Court held that declarant making voluntary disclosure for availing benefit of SVLDR Scheme is ineligible for applying under the scheme if it was subjected to audit as on 30th June 2019.
