Delhi High Court held that the consideration for the purchase of marketing and business rights for a period of twenty years is capital in nature and constitutes an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and therefore eligible to claim depreciation.
Delhi High Court held that AO is not empowered to frame block assessment merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) without reference to any other material discovered during the search and seizure operations.
The Honble Madras High Court observed that Juxtaposing the provisions of both the Acts viz., Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, with each other, it is explicit that collection of any amount in excess of what has been prescribed as fee or in the nature of donation or voluntary contribution either directly or indirectly to the institution or through some other person or institution or trust, as quid pro quo for the seat in any educational institution, would render the activity of both the entities ungenuine.
Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 makes it clear that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under Act may appeal to appellate authority within time limit prescribed in Statute.
Madras High Court held that an application seeking compassionate appointment lapsed several years from the death of the deceased employee is not allowable
Jharkhand High Court held that once registration has been granted under section 12AA after satisfying about genuineness of the activities of the Trust, the same cannot be cancelled on the basis of the same set of provisions of the Trust.
Delhi High Court held that the moratorium will cease to exist once the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code culminates.
Delhi high court held that there was no new/ fresh material before AO to initiate reassessment proceedings, accordingly, mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for initiating reassessment proceedings
Karnataka High Court held that Open Purchase Orders are only standing offers and do not constitute a confirmed ‘Agreement to sell’ and movement of goods are mere stock transfers.
HC held that there is no change in legal position i.e. scope and ambit of intermediary services under service tax regime vis-a-vis the GST regime hence Master Services Sub-contracting agreement which continues to operate since 2013 cannot be treated differently at different period.
