ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is not entitled for concession rate of tax of 20% provided under section 112(1) of the Income Tax Act on the short term capital gain computed under section 50 of the Income Tax Act.
NCLT Mumbai dismissed the petition as not maintainable since debt in question is not undisputed debt. Accordingly, since there exists pre-existing dispute and tribunal cannot adjudicate upon such dispute.
Karnataka High Court held that order passed blocking Input Tax Credit by invoking of rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules quashed as order was passed without providing pre-decisional hearing and without giving cogent reasons.
ITAT Surat held that addition based on unsigned, undated and unstamped Satakhat/ sale and purchase agreement cannot be sustained since such document has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69B deleted.
On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that deduction under Section 80-IB/80-IE of the Income Tax Act disallowed on loan to employees and bank deposits as such interest income is not income derived from industrial undertaking.
ITAT Delhi held that bandwidth charges remitted by the assessee to foreign telecom service providers cannot be treated as royalty either under the applicable treaty provisions or u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, assessee not required to deduct tax at source.
Madras High Court in the case of coverage of musician service within the meaning of section 65B(44) of the Finance Act dismissed the petition with direction to furnish reply to the show cause notice and accordingly issue can be adjudicated and decided by Adjudicating Authority.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that transfer of property cannot be declared as void by invoking provisions of section 81 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 unless there is a finding as to the nature of the transactions by competent authority.
Gujarat High Court held that once indexed renovation expense of co-owner accepted, the assessee is not required to produce any documents to prove his share of indexed renovation expense. Accordingly, allowance should be granted even without proof.
