Madras High Court held that payment made for International Private Leased Circuits [IPLC] doesn’t constitute royalty within the expression provided under clause (iva) to Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act not sustained.
Bombay High Court held that conviction under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] without cogent evidence to prove demand of illegal gratification cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Bombay High Court quashed and set aside Form SVLDRS 3 demanding amount under arrears category and directed department to determine the correct amount considering the declaration filed under Litigation category.
ITAT Chennai held that neurology conferences and workshops squarely fall within the ambit of education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that since there was sufficient own funds to make investment/advances to its subsidiary, the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not warranted. Accordingly, AO directed to delete the addition.
Delhi High Court held that successive Bail Application filed with no change in circumstances is liable to be dismissed. Further, bail application is dismissed since applicant has already been declared an offender.
ITAT Mumbai held that courses not having any approval or affiliation with any authority cannot be ground to hold that the purpose is not charitable. Accordingly, benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act granted since activity of imparting education within meaning of section 2(15).
ITAT Jaipur held that the amount paid before due date of filing the return of income is not supposed to be disallowed under section 43B of the Income Tax Act even though the same was outstanding at the year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify the said aspect and pass appropriate order.
Delhi High Court held that benefit of omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules sought to be extended to all the pending proceedings. Accordingly, proceedings deserves to be quashed. Thus, writ petitions are allowed.
Bombay High Court held that non-production of arrested person before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of the detention renders the arrest completely illegal and in violation of clause 2 of Article 23. Accordingly, the applicant would have to be released on bail.
