ITAT Delhi held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of transaction of payment of royalty is set aside and Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] is directed to accept the parameters of determination of compensation as accepted in Advance Pricing Agreement [APA].
ITAT Delhi held that the approval granted u/s. 153D in the nature of a ‘technical approval’ in symbolic exercise of powers under s. 153D. Hence, the consequential assessment orders based on such repugnant approval under s. 153D is bad in law in tune with earlier years.
Rajasthan High Court held that, in terms of section 151A of the Income Tax Act, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [JAO] doesn’t have jurisdiction to issue notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notices u/s. 148 are liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that employees’ contribution to PF/ESI after statutory due dates but before due date of filing income tax returns not allowable as deduction. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that failure to file declaration detailing particulars of supplier of goods as prescribed in circular no. 16/2009-Customs dated 25th May 2009 is technical irregularity.
ITAT Delhi held that seized document merely indicates some rates than pinpointing any specific on-money payment or receipt; as the case may be, involving the assessee. Thus, addition is liable to be deleted.
Delhi High Court held that application of funds by Indian Broadcasting Foundation in BARC doesn’t qualify as deployment was not intended to yield income/profit hence denial of exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Delhi held that once the books of accounts are rejected, it doesn’t warrant any adhoc addition. Thus, CIT(A) rightly restricted GP @ 1% instead of 1.5% as estimated by AO. Appeal dismissed, accordingly.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty demand on Student Almanac and teacher planner is uphold, however, extended period of limitation is not invocable since there was no evidence of intention to evade payment of duty and suppression of facts.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [CGST Rules] without granting pre-decisional hearing and without stating cogent reason in order is impermissible in law.
