Gujarat High Court held that notice invoking arbitration clause issued under section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn’t require that the nature of dispute has to be enumerated or explained in the notice.
ITAT Delhi held that management fees paid to AE is not chargeable to tax in India in terms with Article 12(4) of India-USA DTAA and hence disallowance of the same u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that without evincing illicit trafficking of the impugned goods and presuming the same as smuggled goods deprives legal sanctity.
Gujarat High Court held that details relating to share application money from the four entities was supplied by the assessee during regular assessment and AO was satisfied with the genuineness of the same Hence reopening the assessment doubting the same entries on the basis of change of opinion is unsustainable.
NCLAT Chandigarh held that as there was no gratuity fund created by the Corporate Debtor the Resolution Professional direct to pay gratuity to employee Additionally the salary and leave encashment of employees during CIRP period falls within the definition of insolvency resolution process cost.
ITAT Mumbai held that appellant is recognizing the revenue on the basis of percentage completion method since inception of the firm as per the Accounting Standards There is no change or modification in the accounting method hence addition unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that it is fact that under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 declarant cannot challenge sum payable before any appellate forum however once the declarant violates condition of DTVSVS Act 2020 the same can be revived by the Department.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that genuineness of source of purchase and sale of shares thereof remained unexplained and hence concluded that the sale of such shares were only accommodation entry and accordingly addition of entire sale consideration upheld.
CESTAT Chennai held that levy of excise on bagasse and press mud was under litigation, hence the amount of credit reversed under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been reversed under protest and refund claim of such reversal done under protest is not hit by time-bar.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of Section 9 application holding that advance payment made by Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor does not fall within the four corners of the Operational Debt is unsustainable as it is settled low that advance payment is covered within the definition of Operational Debt.
