The Calcutta High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order quashing a provisional attachment, holding that the matter had become academic after confirmation under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. The Court emphasized that parties must pursue statutory appellate remedies.
The Court partly allowed the writ petition, noting that the petitioners claim was found genuine upon verification. Authorities were directed to reconsider restoration of GST registration from the original date.
Observing that the assessee invested the entire share of sale proceeds within two years and obtained possession, ITAT Pune allowed Section 54B exemption. The addition under Section 69A was consequently deleted.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging GST assessment orders due to unexplained delay. It held that lack of timely action bars relief under writ jurisdiction.
Booking.com platform earning of commission income is not taxable in India since AO has failed to discharge the onus of establishing assessee having fixed place PE in India. Accordingly, final assessment order is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that securitisation trusts, cannot be assessed as an AOP, are revocable within the meaning of section 63 of the Income Tax Act and hence income is not taxable in the hands of trust. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year. Accordingly, no further disallowance u/s. 14A is called for.
NCLAT Delhi held that the threshold criteria is applicable at the time of filing Section 7 application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and not subsequently. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and order is set aside and remanded back.
ITAT Mumbai held that even if Section 11 exemption is denied due to lack of registration, the Assessing Officer cannot tax entire gross receipts without examining expenditure. Only net income, if any, can be brought to tax.
The Bombay High Court set aside a service tax demand on an advocate, holding that legal services were exempt under Notification Nos. 25/2012 and 30/2012. The Court ruled that the authorities acted without jurisdiction in proceeding contrary to binding notifications.
