CESTAT Ahmedabad held that allegation of clandestine removals based upon the confessional statement of other persons or the documents recovered from the third party premises, without corroboration of the said documents is unsustainable
NCLT Mumbai held that obligations under the Undertaking do not attract the definition of financial debt. A fortiori, an indemnity of the obligations under the Agreement will equally not constitute a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that donations which are not voluntary in nature cannot be treated as corpus donation and hence not eligible for deduction u/s 11(1)(d) of the Income tax Act
Orissa High Court requested the proper officer to grant opportunity to the petitioner for taking all required step to revive registration and also permitted to pay pending GST tax and file the pending GST return prior to cancellation of GST registration u/s 29(2)(c).
ITAT Pune held that AO had not brought any material indicating the existence of an arrangement between the assessee company and its foreign AE, as a result of which more profits than ordinarily have been produced to the assessee company. Hence, provisions of section 10B(7) r.w.s. 80IA have no application.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Alloy Steel Forging (machined) requires to undergo further operation to be ready to use as Rings for Bearing etc. Hence the same is classifiable under tariff heading 7326 Other Articles of Iron or Steel and not under chapter 84.
Substantive benefit of Sabka Vishwas [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme cannot be denied to the on the ground of procedural technicalities
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) unsustainable as assessee is not liable to deduct TDS for reason that consideration received couldnt have been regarded as income deemed to accrue or arise in India.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act for a mere technical default, beyond the control of assessee, in not getting the new property registered within the stipulated time period of two years is unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore held that any ambiguity in a taxing statute should ensure the benefit of the subject/ assessee. Accordingly, the taxing provision of late fee in respect of late filing of TDS return came into force from 01.06.2015. Hence, late fees u/s 234E cannot be levied before 01.06.2015.
