Section 168A of the CGST was inserted as an extraordinary measure to empower the Government to extend time limits due to force majeure circumstances, specifically the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition is unjustified and liable to be deleted since adjustment was made in between interest paid and interest received thus the entire adjustment had no tax effect i.e. it is tax neutral.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi [CIT(E)] dated 28.06.2023 for cancellation of registration granted u/s 12A and u/s 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
ITAT Chennai held that liability to deduct Tax Deduction at Source [TDS] arise only on the amount of actual payment and not on the provision made. Accordingly, TDS liability reduced to that extent and appeal partly allowed.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that reasonable cause has been shown for non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 269T of the Act and further it is not disputed that the transaction is genuine and bona fide.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, dated 20.08.2024, denying grant of approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court held that addition towards unexplained credits against companies used as a conduit for routing accommodation entries is not justified since they are not ultimate beneficiaries. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since there is no tangible material for forming a belief that petitioners had a dependent Permanent Establishment or Fixed Place PE in India
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that physical verification of business premises for GST purposes must occur in the presence of the concerned person and requires proper witness documentation.
In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 Hon’ble apex court have held that The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed.
