ITAT Mumbai held that as assessee is having sufficient own funds hence investments which yield exempt income can be presumed to be made out of interest free funds. Accordingly, disallowance of interest in terms of rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules unsustainable.
ITAT Kolkata held that non-compliance to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act or non-appearance of the directors of the subscribing companies cannot be basis for making addition as the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions.
ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure relating to film which was not released and hence not co-relatable to any income, cannot be disallowed as the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business.
Kerala High Court held that interim relief granted to the workers at 20% of the wages of the works will come within the purview of the definition of basic wages as mentioned in Section 2(b) of the the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Orissa High Court held that No Objection Certificate certified by the Chartered Accountant is the act of discharging his professional duty No criminal proceedings can be continued in absence of material showing personal interest in any gain/ loss of the parties conducting business.
Jharkhand High Court held that bail granted as the petitioner was held to be not at flight risk and also there was no possibility of tampering the evidence or influencing/ intimidating the witness.
Supreme Court of India held that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income particularly when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine what would be the real income based on a holistic assessment.
Allahabad High Court held that granted the bail in GST evasion case observing that the seriousness of the offences alone is not conclusive of the applicant’s entitlement to bail
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that arrangement of the appellant with it is associate companies is in the nature of cost sharing and it would not be correct to say that the appellants are providing any services to their associate companies and hence demand of service tax unsustainable.
Delhi High Court held that Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme requires that the appeal should be pending and hence there is no need to introduce the quantification that the appeal should be valid or competent.
