ITAT Chennai held that post amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2008, the scope of adjustment u/s.143(1) of the Act has widened and enlarged. Accordingly, adjustments with regard to incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return of income permissible.
ITAT Chennai held that AO having chosen not to scrutinize the return cannot resort to the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act in absence of any new or fresh material indicating escapement of income.
Gujarat High Court held that deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act available on export benefit on account of the refund of excise duty.Gujarat High Court held that deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act available on export benefit on account of the refund of excise duty.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act based on tally data having various inherent discrepancy is unsustainable as AO failed to verify or ask the assessee to reconcile the same from actual books of accounts or physical stocks.
NCLAT Delhi held that an application by the Resolution Professional under section 60(5) of IBC, 2016, to direct the tenant to vacant the property of Corporate Debtor, permissible for carrying out the duties entrusted to the IRP under Section 18 of the Code.
NCLT Delhi held that this Adjudicating Authority is not a dispute redressal forum. Accordingly, so long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical and illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
NCLAT Delhi held that impugned order is liable to be set aside as resolution professional didn’t took reasonable step to get the Corporate Debtor as going concern which is mandated as per Section 25(2)(h) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Telangana High Court granted two months time for submission of reply to the show cause notice. Further, stated that extended period of two months will be excluded for the purpose of computing period of 180 days under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
ITAT Mumbai held that in absence of rights in the domain name, receipt from domain name registration doesn’t fall in the category of royalty as defined under Article 12(3) of India-UAE DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition with regard to unexplained payment unsustainable in the hands of the employee as employee merely handled the cash on behalf of the employer.
