Allahabad High Court held that GST registration cancellation notice is not in the prescribed format and didnt mention the date and time on which personal hearing is granted. Proceedings based on such notice is illegal, void and a nullity in eyes of law.
ITAT Delhi held that when the investment in house property is done jointly, claim under section 54 of the Income Tax Act is restricted to the 50%.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim of service tax paid on input services which are wholly consumed within SEZ cannot be denied.
Patna High Court directed BIADA (Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority) to immediately recall the order of cancellation of allotment of impugned premises as the petitioner accepted the undertaking and accepted to pay the pending dues as per the undertaking.
Delhi High Court held that recourse to provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act sustained as prima facie view concludes that AO has committed an error in law.
ITAT Delhi held that capital gain cannot be taxed in the hands of the person who sold the property as attorney of the owner. The same is taxable only in the hands of the owner of the property.
Delhi High Court held that in absence of any profit motive in the activity of assessee-society and also profit so generated is ploughed back for charitable activities. Exemption benefit under section 11 duly available.
ITAT Hyderabad held that mentioning of firm in 2(3)(b) of the Finance Act, 2018 excludes it from 2(3)(a). Accordingly, in case of firm, surcharge is leviable only when its total income exceeds INR 1 crore and not otherwise.
Indofil Industries Limited Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is liable to deduct tax at source in respect of commission expenses payable to the whole time directors under section 192 of the Income Tax Act only, as the same shall form part of their salary payment only. Facts- The assessee company is […]
ITAT Mumbai held that merely because some person misused the share market to rig certain shares in the share market, adverse view against innocent regular investor is unjustifiable and unsustainable in law.
