Delhi High Court held that since petitioner has been exonerated in departmental proceedings, the criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. Accordingly, FIR quashed.
Held that there was substantive correspondence between the petitioner and the Assessing Officer on all materials and subject matter of reopening and all such materials had formed part of the disclosure by the petitioner.
Calcutta High Court held that provisions of sub-section (5) section 245C of Income Tax Act is effective only from 1st February 2021, hence, application before Settlement Commission prior to that date cannot be held as invalid.
Kerala High Court held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, for non-compliance with provisions of section 44AB, not imposable since reasonable cause for belated filing of audit report established.
The appellants before this Court were originally engaged by the Central Water Commission on part-time, ad-hoc terms. Applicant No.1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in 1993, Applicant No.2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and Applicant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999.
In this regard, the petitioner was guided by Central Board of Direct Taxes (“ CBDT” for short) Circular No. 7 of 2018, dated 20 December 2018 for the A.Y. 2016-2017 issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act.
Delhi High Court held that the interest received on borrowed funds, which were temporarily held in interest bearing deposit, is a part of the capital cost and is required to be credited to Capital Work-in-Progress.
A person residing in USA desirous of transferring money to an individual or an entity in India, approaches a branch or an outlet of the assessee and transfers the money in USDs, together with the charges prescribed by the respondent-assessee.
CESTAT Bangalore held that no time limit has been prescribed under the statutory provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act hence circular no. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 cannot prescribe particular time period which is not provide u/s. 149.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of claim under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act justified since assessee is engaged in only collection and transportation of solid wastes and is not engaged in operating and maintaining sold waste management system.
