ITAT Kolkata held that disallowance under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS untenable if payee has duly disclosed the receipt of the impugned payment in their return of income.
ITAT Chennai held that expenditure towards furniture maintenance which is incurred to make the lease premises workable and functional is revenue in nature.
ITAT Kolkata held that inadvertent mistake of claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act instead of section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act is mistake apparent from record which is rectifiable under the provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that condonation of delay cannot be granted merely on the basis of sympathy or benevolence. Further, condonation of delay rejected alleging lack of diligence and inaction on the part of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment without valid reason or intangible material, merely on the basis of information from Electricity Authroity, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received under the Master Franchise Agreement cannot be treated either as royalty or Fee for Technical Services (FTS) or FIS and hence addition deleted.
CESTAT Delhi held that once the confiscation of seized currency is set aside, the appellant is entitled for refund of said seized currency along with interest. Department cannot deny payment of interest merely for the reason that there is no express statutory provision for the same
ITAT Mumbai held that estimated rate of profit applied on the alleged non-genuine purchases doesnt amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable.
Kerala High Court held that proceedings initiated under Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) after prelude of GST is valid on the basis of proceedings covered by the savings clause of section 174(2) of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KSGST Act).
Calcutta High Court held that criminal proceeding initiated in null and void as the proceeding has been initiated without a sanction order from the commissioner which is a mandatory precondition.
