Delhi High Court held that affiliation with and recognition by a regulatory authority are not essential attributes of education under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. NIIT Foundation engaged in conducting systematic and formal instruction, schooling or training qualifies u/s. 2(15).
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods failed to contain specific reason for confiscation. Further, order relating to confiscation of goods didn’t mentioned DIN. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
Delhi High Court held that once the Tribunal had accorded relief and allowed a deduction, the same was liable to be necessarily made by the AO. Accordingly, order denying relief pursuant to Tribunal decision is liable to be quashed.
Kerala High Court held that adjustment of amount payable under Amnesty Scheme 2020 as against refund amount due to the appellant is permissible. Accordingly, writ allowed and adjustment of amount directed.
Kerala High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s. 47(6) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act unjustified as declaration in Form 16 produced demonstrating that goods that were being transported were for own use of the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that long term capital gain on sale of shares in case of the assessee company, being resident of Mauritius, is not liable to be taxed in India.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as sufficient interest free funds were available for investment. Also held that inclusion of bank charges and bank guarantee charges for making disallowance u/s. 14A unjustified.
ITAT Chennai held that section 23 of the Central Act provides for exemption of Income-tax to the Advocates Welfare Fund of the State. Accordingly, exemption granted and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investment in cooperative bank is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act even after insertion of section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that the liability to pay ESI dues is of the company and in the event of there being an occupier, he is liable to meet the demand. However, the liability of the occupier is not personal.
