Himachal Pradesh High Court held that stamp duty/ registration fee not leviable on conversion of public limited company to private limited company.
Supreme Court held that advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition of the assets would certainly amount to utilization of the capital gains for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets and accordingly capital gain exemption available.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deciding any ground based on any additional evidence before CIT(A), without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, is untenable in law. CIT(A) needs to mandatorily given an opportunity to AO to examine the additional evidence.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in the present GST evasion case the investigation stands concluded and the investigation agency has failed to lead any pre-charge evidence even after passing of almost 6 months. Bail granted.
DCIT Vs Aecom Asia Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that the assessee has rightly offered the Overseas Consultancy Income as fees for technical services under the provisions of section 115A of the Act and the addition made under section 44DA of the Act is liable to be deleted. Facts- The Appellant is a […]
ITAT Mumbai held that liaison office in India doesnt constitute permanent establishment (PE) of the assessee in India under the provisions of DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that the date of acquisition of the property under consideration was to be reckoned from the date of the allotment letter and capital gain will be calculated accordingly.
ITAT Delhi held that proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under Section 14A of Income Tax Act for investments made in tax free bonds or securities which yield tax free dividend and interest.
Delhi High Court held that duty drawback has been paid to the exporter, but, until now, sale proceeds have not been received against exports, the deeming provision incorporated in the second (2nd) proviso to Section 75 will kick in. Hence, duty drawback needs to be remitted.
Supreme Court held that the existence of an alternate remedy by itself cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Constitution.
