The court held that the other three companies were also carrying out large-scale projects compared to assessee, making them unsuitable for comparison or setting industry standards.
Calcutta High Court held that provisions of sub-section (5) section 245C of Income Tax Act is effective only from 1st February 2021, hence, application before Settlement Commission prior to that date cannot be held as invalid.
Kerala High Court held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, for non-compliance with provisions of section 44AB, not imposable since reasonable cause for belated filing of audit report established.
In this regard, the petitioner was guided by Central Board of Direct Taxes (“ CBDT” for short) Circular No. 7 of 2018, dated 20 December 2018 for the A.Y. 2016-2017 issued under Section 119(2)(b) of the IT Act.
Delhi High Court held that the interest received on borrowed funds, which were temporarily held in interest bearing deposit, is a part of the capital cost and is required to be credited to Capital Work-in-Progress.
A person residing in USA desirous of transferring money to an individual or an entity in India, approaches a branch or an outlet of the assessee and transfers the money in USDs, together with the charges prescribed by the respondent-assessee.
Madras High Court, taking into consideration financial crises faced by the petitioner, granted liberty to the petitioner to pay interest amount in ten equal monthly instalments since entire tax (GST) is already paid.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that disciplinary action taken district judge based on the material is not merely on basis of inference hence writ dismissed stating that there is no scope for interference in the opinion formed by the disciplinary authority.
The impugned order was challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment had been served by tendering to assessee or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal.
It was held that writ courts did not interfere in cases where statutory remedies were available unless there was a clear violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural perversity leading to manifest injustice.
