ITAT Delhi held that payment of IUC Charges is not Fee for Technical Services or Royalty within the meaning of its definition as per section 9(l)(vi) and 9(l)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that arms length interest rate for loan advanced to foreign subsidiary by Indian company should be computed based on market determined interest rate applicable to currency in which loan has to be repaid.
Lyka Labs Limited Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court held that the signatory of the cheque, authorized by the “Company”, is not the drawer in terms of section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act and cannot be directed to pay interim compensation under section 143A. Facts- The issue involves that whether […]
NCLAT Chennai held that as assets proved to be fictitious/ fraudulent and seems to have been created in books of accounts with an intent to defraud the creditors. Accordingly, amount duly payable to liquidator for distribution under section 53 of I&B Code, 2016.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be allowed to be exercised by the PCIT either for substituting his own opinion for that of the AO or for making a fishing and roving enquiry.
ITAT Raipur held that there is no bar on an individual to join a partnership firm in his representative capacity of a firm being represented by him. In short, partnership firm can be formed by partners represented by their respective firms.
ITAT Delhi held that unless there was specific material collected to rebut the submissions of assessee then merely on basis of inference from the circumstances, the purchase could not have been held to be bogus.
Bombay High Court held that only reason for re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is adoption of different opinion on the question of valuation as against the one adopted by petitioner. Accordingly, such re-assessment proceedings is liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that AO is free to examine the method through which the share price is determined. However, AO doesnot have power to change the method from discounted cash flow (DCF) as followed by assessee to Net Asset Value (NAV).
ITAT Pune held that once a revised return is filed within the time permitted u/s.139(5), it substitutes the original return in all respects. Accordingly, claim of enhanced amount of carry forward of loss vide revised return is allowable.
