Delhi High Court held that the disallowance of expenditure is not sustainable as the evidence and material produced by the assessee establish that it had incurred the expenditure as claimed. Thus, findings of ITAT cannot be perverse.
Delhi High Court held that provision of service by associated enterprise doesn’t include the element of ‘make available’ of technology to the assessee. Thus, benefit of Article 12 of India-USA DTAA available to such payment and hence TDS not deductible on the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that declared price is price for delivery at the time and place of importation unless contrary proved by department. Since onus not discharged, the declared price remains unimpeached.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of short term capital loss not justified since there is no evidence on record based on which genuineness of transactions can be doubted. Hence, held that conclusion drawn by AO is wholly irrational and unsustainable.
Allahabad High Court held that non-production of documents which were relied upon by the department amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, impugned order liable to be quashed.
Thus, the prayer of the Appellant to exclude the commercial space from the Resolution Plan, could not have been accepted, nor any direction could have been issued for registration of Sale Deed.
Kerala High Court held that a loss in the derivative business is a business loss for the purposes of Section 72, and thus a set off of such business loss would have to be permitted against profits and gains of business.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for lower deduction of TDS not justified since the lower deduction in earlier months were due to bonafide reasons and the same was adjusted in later months.
Allahabad High Court held that appeal u/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since there is no perversity in finding of the Tribunal and accordingly there exists no substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act impermissible unless it is satisfied that document / seized material belonged to the assessee. Thus, appeal dismissed.
