ITAT Mumbai held that the employer has to remit both the contributions (employee’s contribution and employer’s contribution) to the Provident Fund within 15 days from the close of the month for which the employees earned their salary i.e., Salary payable.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice by AO in the status of ‘Local Authority’ and assessment framed in different status i.e. in the name of ‘Artificial Juridical Person’ is bad in law and hence liable to be cancelled.
ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed addition on account of bogus long term capital gains from transaction in penny stock observing that mere filing documentary evidences did not discharge onus cast on the assessee to prove genuineness of the transaction.
ITAT Mumbai held that composite rental income received by letting out school building with infrastructure and amenities is taxable under the head ‘Income from House Property’ and not under ‘Income from income from other sources’ in view of section 56(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that the power to grant bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is discretionary. Accordingly, court directed AIIMS to evaluate medical condition of the petitioner.
Delhi High Court granted interim bail on petitioner satisfying the test of proviso to section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) as petitioner is suffering from life-threatening diseases warranting immediate medical attention.
Madras High Court didn’t entertained the writ petitioner as appeal remedy available before the appropriate authority. Accordingly, petitioner directed to preferred appeal under the provisions of TNGST Act, 2017.
Madras High Court held that cases, wherein, investigation/ audit should have been conducted prior to 30.06.2019 the benefit under Sabkha Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDRS] is not available.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as present case doesn’t involve invocation of any of the sections i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that difference between service tax return and the revenue was occurred due to the wrong exchange rate applied to export income transaction while filing the service tax return. Hence, mere mistake in the service tax return does not mean that the income of the assessee has been suppressed.
