ITAT Hyderabad held that interest payment on late payment of TDS is not compensatory in nature and is not allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Held that prior to 1-4- 2024 there was no bar on assessee claiming exemption under section 10 (23EC) and under section 11 and 12 of the act. Accordingly, contribution received from commodity exchange and members thereof is exempt u/s 10(23EC) of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Bangalore held that benefit of exemption notification no. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and 12/2012-CE available to the motor vehicle manufactured as ownership of chassis was transferred after the sale of the same by VIPL to Appellant.
CESTAT Chennai held that the demand for paying an amount of 5% /10% /6% on the value of exempted clearances unwarranted when the appellant has reversed the proportionate credit of inputs used in manufacture of exempted products.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty imposed under Sub-Regulation 8 of Regulation 12 cannot be inclined for lack of due diligence on the part of the employee of CFS especially when the department did not find anything wrong when compared to employees of other CFS.
Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, without indicating basis for having a reason to belief that income has escaped assessment, merely based on change of opinion is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Kolkata remanded the matter back to CIT(A) as relief was granted to the assessee on the basis of various submissions which were for the first time furnished before CIT(A) and CIT(A) prior to granting relief didn’t conduct any enquiry on the same.
ITAT Raipur held that assessee-society not being wholly and substantially financed by the government is not entitled for claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High Court held that failure to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act results in rendering the final assessment as one without jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court held that rejection of benefit under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV) unjustified as pendency of prosecution was in respect of any issue and not in respect of tax arrears.
