In present facts of the case, the National Commission while dismissing the Complaint observed that in the absence of any omission, rashness negligence much less gross negligence the allegation made against the Opposite Parties have not been established and hence no relief could be made out.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue received by the assessee for providing centralized services is not in the nature of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s. 9(I)(vi) Explanation of Income Tax Act, but it is a business income and since assessee is not having PE in India, the same is not taxable.
Bombay High Court held that no assessment can be reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. Accordingly, initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that there was no express arrangement / agreement between the assessee and the AE for incurring advertisement, marketing and promotional expenses (AMP) to promote the brand of the AE and hence the said transactions would not constitute international transaction relating to AMP expenditure. Thus, TP adjustment deleted.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that the resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Professional of Superdrawn Industries Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) stands approved at it has been approved with 100% voting share and plan meets the requirement of being viable and feasible.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the applicability of Section 14A is triggered when the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’ and by virtue of section 10(34) dividend income is not to be included in total income and is exempt from tax.
Kerala High Court held that since the period involved is 2017-2018 when the GST regime was rolled out, there was difficulty in understanding GST. Further, tax is paid to the Government for which input tax credit is claimed. Hence, disallowance set aside.
In present facts the National Commission dismissed the Appeal by observing that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order.
Calcutta High Court held that the land once vested with State cannot be derequisitioned nor any further acquisition proceedings lie under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case municipal tax receipts are in name of land lord and ownership of flats are with society and taxes are borne by the society and collects proportionate taxes from flat owner. Then, municipal tax so paid is allowable as expenditure u/s 24 of the Income Tax Act.
