ITAT Delhi held that where the variation between the issue price and fair market value is within the 10% safe harbour under Rule 11UA, the issue price is deemed to be the FMV. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was therefore deleted.
The Madras High Court refused to condone a 15-day delay, observing that the delayed intra-court appeal appeared to be an attempt to evade or defer tax payment. It, however, allowed the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer without a valid transfer order under Section 127 rendered the assessment invalid. The assessment was quashed without examining the merits.
NCLT Mumbai directed meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors of the listed company while dispensing with meetings for other applicant companies due to unanimous written consents. The order lays down the procedural framework for considering the composite demerger and amalgamation scheme.
The ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was adequately explained through instrument charges consistently disclosed in earlier years. It deleted the addition under Section 69A after finding the source of cash established.
The ITAT held that advertisement and brand promotion expenses incurred by the distributor were for its own business and were not shown to have been reimbursed by the principal company. It upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 37(1).
The NCLT held that a film co-production arrangement involving joint investment, shared control, and profit sharing did not create an operational debt under the IBC. It dismissed the Section 9 petition without examining limitation or set-off.
The Kerala High Court held that the ITAT wrongly assumed that the Assessing Officer had not examined either disputed issue. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration after finding non-consideration of the assessee’s contentions.
The Kerala High Court held that condonation of delay in filing the income tax return could materially affect the assessment denying Section 80P deduction. It directed the Assessing Officer to decide the rectification application within three months.
The Kerala High Court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(5) prevails over the time limit under Section 16(4) where returns are filed before the statutory cut-off date. It remanded the matter for reconsideration of the ITC claim.
