Delhi High Court held that tax credit could not be extended to the assessee, because it had not paid tax in Thailand, i.e., that benefit under Article 23 of the Indo-Thai DTAA could only be extended in a situation where the tax had actually been paid.
Held that there is sufficient incriminating evidence about the involvement of the accused/applicant in the offence of money laundering and accordingly the bail application is dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act is only against the person in whose possession the search material is found and not against any other person. Addition based on dumb documents without corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court held that construing telephonic conversation of Officer with the proprietor as personal hearing is not acceptable. Hence, order passed thereon is in violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of statutory principles of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act).
ITAT Delhi held that the payments received by the assessee in view of architectural design services rendered to its clients in India are not chargeable to tax as FTS in terms of Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest income earned by depositing surplus grants in a particular mode as per the directions of the State Government is also treated as part of the grants and hence it cannot be treated as income of the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest paid towards refund of excess claim of duty drawback is not in the nature of penalty or fine. Accordingly, provisions of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the I.T. Act not violated.
ITAT Mumbai held that where assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non-existing entity, would be without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that twin conditions as set out in section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act are satisfied and income accrued from Pharmacy store is incidental to the dominant object of running Hospital. Hence, addition towards profits earned from Pharmacy Store not taxable.
Delhi High Court held that notification dated 05.04.2021 cannot be said as void in law as time for which the interim orders were operable has to be excluded from the timeframe provided in Rule 18 of of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of AntiDumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (AAD Rules).
