Delhi High Court held that Advertisement, Market and business Promotion (AMP) expenses incurred cannot be termed as an international transaction in the absence of any provision for the same in the agreement with Associated Enterprise.
Delhi High Court held that the interim moratorium under Section 96 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in respect of one of the guarantors would not ipso facto apply against a co-guarantor.
CESTAT Mumbai held that for the same period excise duty is demanding alleging that activities undertaken by the appellants do amount to manufacture of Prefabricated building i.e. Green House and also service tax on activity of erection and commission of Greenhouse and Polyhouse at site. Accordingly, held that to ascertain the position, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.
Madras High Court held that for contract entered prior to 01.07.2017 under National Highways and Public Works Department differential tax liability is to be computed as per Government Orders and any recovery affected from the contractor contrary to the methodology will be refunded.
ITAT Pune held that interest u/s 201(1A) was charged on account of ex-facie delay in depositing the deducted tax within the stipulated due dates and such levy is automatic and without escapement.
ITAT Bangalore held that as per provisions of section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act deduction on leave encashment is available on actual payment basis and not available on accrual basis.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of making general statement without examining the alleged receipts is unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that merely because the assessee couldn’t explain the balance amount of Rs. 8,57,000 mentioned in computation of income and return, the same cannot be added to the total income. Addition not sustainable on the basis of typographical error.
Bombay High Court held that section 129E of the Customs Act was amended on 1st October 2014 incorporating mandatory requirement of pre-deposit is constitutionally valid and cannot be held to be unreasonable, onerous, unfair or discriminatory.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per rule 3(8)(iii) fair market value of any equity shares on the date of exercising option by the employee shall be determined by a merchant banker. Accordingly, quantum of perquisite and TDS liability will be worked on the said basis.
