ITAT Rajkot held that the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act cannot be denied only on the basis that the assessee did not file its return of income within due date u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition merely on the basis of seized paper which is neither signed nor dated, without any corroborative evidence, is untenable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that the centralised services fee received by the assessee cannot be treated as FTS under Article 12 of the India-Singapore tax treaty, hence not taxable in India.
Supreme Court held that as the appeal is pending before NCLAT, this court is desisting from entering a finding on the merits of the rival submissions which have been urged on behalf of the contesting parties.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the disallowances made under section 14A read with rule 8D cannot be the subject matter of disallowances while determining the net profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
NCLAT Delhi held that withdrawal application under section 12A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 unsustainable once CoC (Committee of Creditors) approves a resolution plan.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of Article 24 of DTAA between India and Singapore will be applicable only when condition no. 1, condition no. 2 and condition no. 3 in paragraph 4.2 are satisfied simultaneously. Here as condition no. 1 is not satisfied, DTAA would not be attracted in case of GCC.
CESTAT Mumbai held that offence of money-laundering committed by an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as offence of trivial nature.
ITAT Surat held that addition on the basis of un-signed/un-stamped Satakhat, which has not been registered and which is found from CD of computer of person, unsustainable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act without satisfying twin conditions i.e. that the order of the AO must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is unsustainable in law.
