Supreme Court held that amendment to Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act by virtue of the Finance Act, 2022 is effective only from 1st April 2023 and the same cannot be given retrospective effect.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved. Appeal dismissed in absence of substantial question of law.
Delhi High Court held that determination as carried out by the Designated Authority under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act] is clearly rendered finality and cannot possibly be reopened or revised by any authority under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, rectification notice issued u/s. 154 quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest/ dividend from co-operative society is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. However, if payer bank is co-operative bank then deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is not available.
Guwahati High Court held that invocation of extended period of limitation unjustified as entire details of availment of CENVAT Credit disclosed in STR-3 return and there is no allegation of wilful suppression and misstatement with intent to evade service tax in notice.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed investment in shares and unsecured loans merely based on observation made by DCIT without independent inquiry by AO is unjustified and hence the addition is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on reliance placed on third party statement without any corroborated evidence is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, issue restored to AO for de novo adjudication.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefit merely because amended shipping bills were not being reflected on the automates is unjustifiable. Accordingly, MEIS benefit claim allowed.
ITAT Bangalore directed AO that claim in respect of interest on fixed deposits if any is not allowed u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act has to be considered in accordance with law by allowing the expenditure u/s. 57 of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that the sale of lottery tickets by the State is a privileged activity by itself and not rendering of a service for which the assessees are rendering promotion or marketing service. Hence, service tax not leviable under ‘Business Auxiliary Services’.
