ITAT Mumbai held that assessee duly furnished details like PAN, sub-contract amount and details of TDS justifying payment to sub-contractors. Merely disallowing 10% of sub-contract expense without verifying the veracity of assessee’s claim based on the evidences produced is unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court held that as the exercise of jurisdiction of Delhi High Court in case where the jurisdictional assessing officer is located outside NCT of Delhi in earlier judicial ruling is doubted. The matter is referred to larger bench of Delhi High Court.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of payment towards PF and ESI contributions, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) when payment made well before due date of filing Income Tax Return u/s 139(1) is unsustainable even if reported by the auditor in tax audit report.
ITAT Mumbai held that exemption under section 54 for the amount invested towards the purchase of new residential property under consideration up to the date of filing of belated return under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that penalty order passed beyond the time period prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Act i.e. after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation received in respect of award/ agreement under Section 96 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is not taxable under Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest earned from FDR is taxable under section 57 under the taxable head Income from other sources and not under business income.
ITAT Mumbai held that with effect from 1st April 2003, Computer Software has been classified as a tangible asset under the heading Plant entitled for depreciation @60%.
NCLAT Delhi held that provident fund dues are not the assets of the Corporate Debtor and they have to be paid in full of all the pending dues of the Provident Fund Contribution, Provident Fund Administrative Cost, Interest for delay etc.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claims rejected as time-barred considering the date of re-submission of refund claim as the date of filing of refund claim and ignoring the date on which the initial/ original refund claim was filed is unsustainable in law.
