Kerala High Court held that recovery proceedings in the matter of applicability of TDS u/s. 192 in case of consultant doctors being employees of hospital is to be kept in abeyance pursuant to pending final disposal of appeal.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act for receiving fixed assets from sister concern on free of cost basis unjustified as no benefit is derived from the same. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that gratuity doesn’t form part of liquidation estate. Hence, entire dues of workers would not come under liquidation assets. Thus, writ dismissed and order directing payment of gratuity upheld.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of resolution plan of appellant justified as CoC deliberated and discussed the Resolution Plan of the Appellant. Thus, resolution plan with 97% vote share of CoC rightly approved.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) rightly restricted disallowance on account of unexplained bank deposit and withdrawal under section 68 of the Income Tax Act to 0.3% of total Circular Trading Transaction. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Held that the invoices issued by the assessee contained a barcode. A barcode on a tax invoice serves as a verification mechanism, ensuring that the sale is recorded in the system and adds a layer of authenticity.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 195 as well as section 40(a)(iii) are not attracted in case of salary paid to staff hired outside India and services were utilised outside India. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that in view of Section 35L of the Central Excise Tax as the question of law involved is regarding the taxability of the service, the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court and before High Court. Thus, the present appeal is rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued after a period of six years is barred by limitation. Accordingly, assessment proceedings under section 147 is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that Section 153C as application at relevant time didn’t contemplate two tier recordal of satisfaction. Thus, proceedings u/s. 153C couldn’t have been triggered mechanically without formation of opinion by AO of non-searched person.
