Payment of Rs.89 lakhs on account of pension to wholetime Directors on the basis of Board resolution of the assessee company was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee and was allowable as deduction.
DCIT Vs Honeywell Automation India Ltd (ITAT Pune) Conclusion: Interest on income-tax refund amounting to Rs.1.18 crore cannot be charged to tax on the processing of return u/s.143(1) during the year under consideration for the raison d’etre that the regular assessment made in the year 2017 resulted into creation of demand and wiping out the […]
Assessee was paid severance pay due to loss of employment and the receipt of severance pay though the nomenclature was not mentioned as ex-gratia but took the character of a capital receipt and the payment was made voluntary by the employer for loss of employment and such capital receipt was not taxable in the hands of the assessee.
Payment received by EYGSL (UK) for providing access to computer software to its member firms of EY Network located in India, that is, EYGBS (India), did not amount to royalty liable to be taxed in India under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the India-UK DTAA as the same did not create any right to transfer the copyright in the software.
The claim of assessee stood at Rs. 96,41,765.31 for not making the due payments against the 189 consignment of the respondents was acceptable as the respondent had taken up wholly untenable ground that the large number of documents such as invoices, debit notes and ST-1 Form spread over 3 months was an exercise of duress to defeat the legitimate claim raised by assessee.
Rajeev Mishra Vs State of Odisha And Another (Orissa High Court) Conclusion: Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against assessee, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money had been misappropriated by availing and passing of bogus ITC, assessee was […]
Reference for special audit u/s 142(A) was invalid and the assessment orders so passed in the extended time were held to be barred by limitation.
E S Krishnamurthy & Ors. Vs Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) Conclusion: What the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority had proceeded to do was to abdicate their jurisdiction to decide a petition under Section 7 by directing the respondent to settle the remaining claims within three months and leaving it open to […]
Due to compelling circumstances and because of the technical glitches and difficulties, assessee was not able to file TRAN-1 form, therefore, High Court directed GST Authority to re-open online portal to enable filing of Form TRAN-1 electronically or accept manually.
Since the provisions under the Regulations to punish the Customs House Agent for violation and contravention of the Regulations was in addition to the penal provisions prescribed under the parent act, namely, the Customs Act, therefore, mis-declaration of goods and attempt to export such goods by assessee-customs house agent was punishable under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
