Bombay High Court held that the management representative cannot be treated as legally trained mind for enabling an outsider practicing Advocate to defend Respondent-workman in the domestic enquiry. Accordingly, order of industrial court is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Pune deletes additions against Ganraj Homes LLP based on extrapolated on-money allegations, citing lack of corroborative evidence and arbitrary assumptions.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 towards unaccounted gold and silver jewellery set aside relying on CBDT instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Kerala High Court held that recovery of tax arrears by income tax department from property that was already auctioned by Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [KGST] to realize tax payable under KGST is untenable in the eye of law.
Delhi High Court held that license fees paid to M/s. Remfry & Sagar for use goodwill vested in the company is allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Held that while considering the term “unfair trade practice”, this Court has found that such one-sided Agreements, as in the present case, would be covered by the definition of term “unfair trade practice”.
ITAT Delhi held that Long Term Capital Gain [LTCG] earned from transaction in penny stock is liable for addition. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed and order of CIT(A) being well reasoned is upheld.
ITAT Mumbai held that adjustment of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is not permissible adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) set aside and deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) allowed.
Supreme Court held that the discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal. Thus, all the orders terminating the services are quashed.
ITAT Agra held that confirming penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act before finalization of quantum assessment is unjust and unfair. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
