ITAT Delhi held that benefit of India-UK DTAA is available to Limited Liability Partnership on the portion of income from Indian engagement.
Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Kerala High Court) Kerala High Court held that as the GST Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, the petitioner entitled to exercise jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Facts- The petitioner is a non-banking finance company and is an assessee under […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that clause (k) of Rule 6DD specifies that where payment for expenses are made by a person to an agent who is required to make payment in cash on behalf of such person, then rigours of section 40A(3) are not applicable.
CESTAT Delhi held that the intermediary does not include the person who supplies such goods or services or both on his own account. Thus, the person supplying the main supply on principal to principal basis cannot come within the ambit of “intermediary”.
ITAT Surat held that Assessing Officer is not entitled to admit or entertain additional claim during the assessment proceedings, however the appellate authority has such jurisdiction to admit such additional claim.
Madras High Court held that the Appellate Authority should have gone into the reasons adduced by the writ petitioner for non-filing of GSTR-3B return. In absence of the same, the impugned order cancelling GST registration set aside and matter remanded back to Appellate Authority for examination.
ITAT Pune held that if there was enquiry conducted by the AO even if the enquiry in inadequate there will be no occasion to the Commissioner to exercise the power of revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that the main objective of the assesses is to carry on the business of letting out of properties and hence the income earned by the assessee from letting out of the property is assessable under the head Income from Business.
ITAT Hyderabad held that if the assessee is not entitled to claim the loss of investment as bad debts, the same cannot be claimed as business loss as per his sweet will.
ITAT Mumbai held that bad debts arising from credit card business would be part and parcel of loss arising in the course of banking business and hence liable as deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
