ITAT Bangalore held that as the additional income offered is considered as business income, remuneration u/s. 40(b)(v) of the Income Tax Act is available on the same.
ITAT Pune held that as the business of amalgamating company continues uninterruptedly by amalgamated company, the benefit of carry forward and set off earned by amalgamating company is available to amalgamated company.
Held that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure but the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets so capitalized and put to use for the software services related to health care.
Patna High Court held that order is bad in law and liable to be quashed as the same was passed in violation of principle of natural justice i.e. without providing fair opportunity of hearing and order was passed e-parte without assigning sufficient reasons.
NCLAT Delhi held that scheme of compromise and arrangement is found to inflate the total payments by provisioning payment to creditors who are related to corporate debtor. Hence, impugned order allowing the Liquidator to proceed with the e-auction and not allowing any more time for consideration of the scheme proposed under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is sustainable.
NCLAT Chennai held that there is no specified look back period for fraudulent trading under section 66 and hence losses caused to the Creditors are recovered in the event of the Liquidation and that the Directors who caused such losses are made liable to make good such losses.
Orissa High Court held that exporter duly discharged its burden as details duly supplied and hence mere non-production of agreement entered into between the Indian Exporter and the Foreign Buyer would not invalidate the claim of the petitioner-penultimate seller for exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act.
ITAT Delhi held that forward contract was purely hedging transactions entered into by assessee to safeguard against loss arising out of fluctuation in foreign currency, loss on such transactions could not be held as speculative transactions felling within ambit of section 43(5).
ITAT Pune held that foreign exchange gain/loss which has arisen from exports/imports of the product/materials which are in the ordinary course of business of the assesses are included as operating cost.
CESTAT Delhi held that as the appellant bonafidely, in view of their claim of Area based exemption, didn’t collected central excise duty, they are entitled to benefit of recalculation of demand on cum-duty basis as per explanation to section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act.
