ITAT Hyderabad directed to reconsider claim of concessional tax rate benefit u/s. 115BAA of the Income Tax Act since Form 10-IC filed belatedly but was filed before cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2022 as prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 6/2022. Accordingly, appeal allowed for statistical purpose.
Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition to quash an FIR against a former employee accused of siphoning funds, rejecting claims that transactions were for income tax benefits.
The ITAT Rajkot has deleted a disallowance under Section 40A(3), ruling that the provision applies to individual payments against a single bill, not the aggregate of multiple payments below Rs. 20,000 each.
NCLT had no discretion to appoint an IRP other than the one proposed by the applicant, unless disciplinary proceedings were pending. As the NCLT’s order substituting the recommended IRP lacked statutory support, it was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the registered owner of a scooter from which 80 liters of illicit liquor were seized, citing the accused’s absence from the scene and lack of criminal history.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allows trust’s appeal, condones delay in filing Form 10B, and remands matter to CIT(A) for reconsideration of Rs. 41.31L disallowance.
The ITAT has declared an assessment against SoftwareONE India Pvt. Ltd. void, ruling that an assessment framed in the name of a non-existent, merged entity is invalid, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
The Madras High Court mandates an online application for GST order rectification clarifying that a timely offline application serves to meet the limitation period under Section 161 of the GST Act.
Consequently, the petition was admitted, moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC was declared and Interim Resolution Professional was appointed to conduct the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of corporate debtor.
NCLAT rejected the recall of its 01.02.2023 order and dismissed the condone delay application of 248 days, as appellant himself had requested withdrawal earlier.
