Delhi High Court held that there was no evidence of cessation of liability thus addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted as delay in BU was due to dispute of jurisdiction between AMC and AUDA. Accordingly, following judgement of Jurisdictional HC and SC disallowance rightly deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest paid on loan from group entities are in the nature of reimbursement and therefore not liable for deduction of TDS. Therefore, addition made by AO is directed to be deleted.
Kerala High Court held that the issue relating requirement of separate notification as contemplated by the provisions of section 6(1) of the CGST Act for cross-empowerment requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court.
Delhi High Court held that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to counter the allegation that it was a conduit company without any substance. Thus, the appeal filed by the revenue dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 98 of the IBC enables Financial Creditor to apply for replacement of Resolution Professional. Notably, filing of application by resolution professional is immaterial.
NCLT Ahmedabad approved application filed u/s. 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 by Mahan Industries Limited for reduction of share capital as approved by the Shareholders by passing a Special Resolution.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted disallowance of sales promotion expenditure since disallowance constitutes small percentage as compared to turnover of the assessee and also there is no allegation of expenditure incurred in cash.
Madras High Court held that proviso 3 to section 161 of the CGST Act provides that it is mandatory to grant an opportunity of being heard if rectification order is detrimental to the interest of assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance @10% of personnel expenditure not justified since AO mistakenly presumed expenses claimed by assessee as personal expenditure instead of personnel expenditure. Thus, appeal allowed.
