ITAT Ahmedabad restored matter of registration under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act to the file of CIT(E) for verification that expenditure on religious activities was within the threshold limit of 5% as specified under section 80G(5) of the Act.
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty justified since appellant holding IEC registration ought to have acted responsibly and ensured that the same was not misused by any third party. Thus, penalty imposed on the appellant justified since appellant was aware of IEC being misused.
Bombay High Court held that amalgamated company not having obtained approval of Central Government is entitled to adjust the Written Down Value [WDV] of the assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation on such adjusted written down value.
Delhi High Court held that reasonable payment for services rendered to persons specified u/s. 13(3) of the Income Tax Act by the trust is justifiable and such payment wouldn’t fall within the exception of section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in law since Assessing Officer examined the aspect of disallowance of bogus losses on sale of steel scrap and took plausible view.
The said order was challenged before the appellate authority. By order dated 25.11.2024, the appeal was allowed and was remanded back for fresh consideration on noticing that the order impugned therein was passed ex-parte.
The petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant, residing in New Delhi. His name was included in a list of “Undesirable Contact Men” (UCM) which was allegedly circulated by the CBI and subsequently published in various newspaper clippings.
ITAT Mumbai held that the rate of tax on a short term capital gain on depreciable assets u/s. 50 has been held to be the rate of long term capital gain @ 20% as per Section 112 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Delhi restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass order after affording reasonable, adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and hence the appeal of the assessee is deserves to be allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that section 28(9) of Customs Act mandates adjudication of show cause notice within one year. Thus, adjudication of notice after around 10 years of issuance, without justifiable reason, is not tenable and hence order issued thereon is liable to be quashed.
