Supreme Court rules common management entities can be clubbed for PF liability, rejecting separate entity claims to prevent evasion of beneficial legislation.
Supreme Court rules umbilical cord stem cell banking is a healthcare service, exempt from tax. Clarifies extended limitation period requires intent to evade.
Prasad Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Telangana High Court) Payments in Normal Business Course Not Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e): Relief for M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Telangana High Court Clears Misapplication of Deemed Dividend Provisions in Inter-Company Business Transactions Background: M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., a closely held company, filed appeals against […]
ITAT Mumbai clarifies derivative income taxability for Mauritius fund. Rules derivatives are distinct from shares, exempting gains from Indian tax under India-Mauritius DTAA Article 13(4).
ITAT Bangalore rules that merely disallowing advances written off and interest claims does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), reinforcing that an honest claim, even if rejected, is not an inaccurate particular of income.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay of more than 5 years in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) condoned as reason for delay found to be genuine. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) quashed and matter restored back to CIT(A).
ITAT Allahabad held that in the absence of any comparable cases, the past history of the assessee, which has been accepted in many assessments under section 143(3) of the Act, cannot be overlooked. Accordingly, directed to assess net profit @3.5% instead of 7%/5% of contractual receipts.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some parties didn’t respond to the notice of AO, entire expenditure cannot be held as non-genuine. Accordingly, deletion of addition by CIT(A) upheld.
Therefore, the amount distributed by it to the Petitioner would not qualify as exempt dividend income under Section 10(34) of the Act. This to our mind would be merely a “change of opinion”.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption u/s. 54F and 54B of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-adherence to strict time limits. Accordingly, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction in respect of investments made beyond the prescribed time period.
