ITAT Mumbai held that there was no express arrangement / agreement between the assessee and the AE for incurring advertisement, marketing and promotional expenses (AMP) to promote the brand of the AE and hence the said transactions would not constitute international transaction relating to AMP expenditure. Thus, TP adjustment deleted.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that the resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Professional of Superdrawn Industries Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) stands approved at it has been approved with 100% voting share and plan meets the requirement of being viable and feasible.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the applicability of Section 14A is triggered when the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’ and by virtue of section 10(34) dividend income is not to be included in total income and is exempt from tax.
Kerala High Court held that since the period involved is 2017-2018 when the GST regime was rolled out, there was difficulty in understanding GST. Further, tax is paid to the Government for which input tax credit is claimed. Hence, disallowance set aside.
Calcutta High Court held that the land once vested with State cannot be derequisitioned nor any further acquisition proceedings lie under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case municipal tax receipts are in name of land lord and ownership of flats are with society and taxes are borne by the society and collects proportionate taxes from flat owner. Then, municipal tax so paid is allowable as expenditure u/s 24 of the Income Tax Act.
Held that the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable to the assessee to the extent of operations carried out through operating qualifying ships where the income is taxed under Tonnage Tax Scheme.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as DRI just prior to investigations by DGCEI took away all records pertaining to the import of scrap, the manufacturer cannot be expected to produce documents showing transport and receipt of the goods in the factory. Accordingly, demand of Cenvat alleging non-receipt of inputs set aside.
ITAT Bangalore held that the share premium received by the company is in excess of fair market value of the share, the addition thus made u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act is found to be just and proper.
ITAT Pune held that as the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the same was not converted into complete scrutiny, the scope of verification of AO cannot be extended to other issues/matter. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
