ITAT Mumbai held that sale of Dangerous Goods Regulations manuals could not be characterised as ‘royalty’ within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the India-Canada tax treaty. Accordingly, addition towards sale of manuals is deleted.
NCLAT Delhi held that trusteeship deeds are generally signed between the trust on behalf of the lenders and the personal/ corporate guarantor of the principal borrower and Creditors are the true beneficiaries of such deed of guarantee.
ITAT Bangalore held that ignorance of law is not a ground for condonation of delay, hence delay of 879 days in filing of an appeal without any sufficient reason shown is not condonable. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Bangalore held that reopening of assessment under section 148 after expiry of four years without failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts is invalid and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) rightly deleted addition towards bogus purchases since assessee proved genuineness of purchases by submitting various details/ documents. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that AO has passed the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153B(b) of the Act without seeking a prior approval of the same by the Jt. CIT u/s. 153D of the Income Tax Act and hence the order so passed is liable to be quashed.
NCLAT Delhi held that CoC decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor is acceptable as corporate debtor has no assets and thus CIRP Period only implies zero returns. Thus, adjudicating authority order accepting liquidation upheld.
The assessee is into development and construction of a project. The case was selected for scrutiny and AO issued notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, calling for certain details.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act unjustified when reimbursement of expenses is considered as receipts in total income and tax is paid on the same therefore no disallowance in terms of proviso to section 201.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the development rights in the land were not the land itself and, therefore, the provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act was not applicable on transfer of development rights in the land.
