ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance u/s 14A untenable as AO has mechanically applied rule 8D without having recorded his satisfaction or examining the nature of investments whether they have yielded any exempt income or not.
ITAT Bangalore held that depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act is allowable only when the asset is put to use for the business purpose. Notably, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the assets are put to use for the business purposes only.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of Microsoft patent application for invention relating to ‘Methods and Systems for authentication of a user for sub-locations of a network location’ solely on the basis of non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970 is unjustified and needs re-examination.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as the revenue from selling of bandwidth business of the assessee is shared between the assessee and its parent company, profits eligible to deduction under section 80IA(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Act is reducible.
ITAT Cuttack held that addition towards the unexplained investment for SBN deposits during demonetization period sustained in absence to establish source of the same without documentary evidences.
ITAT Rajkot held that the capital contribution made by the partner of the firm cannot be subject to the addition in the hands of the partnership firm.
ITAT Kolkata held that invoking deeming provisions under section 50C and adopting value of property as per Stamp Valuation authority without referring the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer unsustainable. Accordingly, matter restored to jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
ITAT Delhi held that it is settled principle of law that crates and bottles have been allowed depreciation. Accordingly, the claim of depreciation is allowable.
ITAT Chennai held that strict conditions provided in Rule 37BA should be read in the provisions of Section 199(1) to make it workable in genuine cases where department is sure no double credit is allowed or claimed.
NCLT Mumbai held that as per section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Code) company under Liquidation is disbarred from initiating any legal proceedings without seeking the prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, the Liquidator was not competent to initiate proceedings u/s. 7 of the Code.
