Tax treatment of a foreign exchange fluctuation depended entirely on the nature of the underlying asset or liability. Gains or losses on capital items (like a long-term investment or loan) were not typically recognized for tax purposes until the asset was actually sold or the loan was repaid.
Provision for customer loyalty points, computed on a scientific and consistent basis, constituted a present and ascertained liability deductible under Section 37(1). Disallowance u/s 14A was deleted since no exempt income was earned during the year.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
Where temporary loans received and repaid through banking channels, with identity and creditworthiness of lender proved, the sa,e could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Reliance on third-party statements without cross-examination was invalid.
Cross-empowerment under Section 6(1) of the CGST Act was automatic and did not require a separate Government notification. Both Central and State GST officers possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate intelligence-based enforcement actions.
Provisional release order by substituting the bank guarantee requirement with a bond of equivalent amount, while retaining other conditions. The Court emphasized that onerous financial conditions prior to adjudication are unwarranted, especially for non-prohibited goods, and directed release upon compliance within seven days.
Compounding fees collected from illegal mining, transportation, and storage of minerals constituted a ‘transfer of rights’ and consequently attracted Tax Collection at Source (TCS) under Section 206C(1C) as it involved parting with an interest in the mine.
Approval under Section 153D was invalid, as it was granted mechanically and collectively for several years, without independent application of mind. Such perfunctory approval defeats the statutory safeguard intended by the legislature. Consequently, the entire proceedings and assessments were quashed.
Technical Member’s prior role as HUDCO nominee director did not establish real danger or reasonable apprehension of bias. Tribunal held that the recall application lacked merit and was a belated attempt to reopen a matter that had already attained finality.
Appellate Tribunal held that the NCLT’s order replacing the Resolution Professional suffered from procedural irregularity and violation of natural justice. Replacement under Section 27 of the I&B Code must be done only through a CoC resolution with 66% voting however, since the RP himself failed to place the agenda for replacement, he could not claim advantage of that lapse. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the NCLT was directed to follow due procedure under Section 27, ensuring fair opportunity and compliance with law.
