Bombay High Court held that rejection of benefit under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV) unjustified as pendency of prosecution was in respect of any issue and not in respect of tax arrears.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is entitled to make additional claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act on the strength of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka even though the same was not included while filing return of income.
ITAT Kolkata held that Joint Venture is not required to deduct TDS u/s. 194C from the payments made to one of its constituents for execution of work awarded to it as no contractual relation exists. Further, Joint Venture is also not required to deduct TDS u/s. 194H from payments made to another constituent as compensation.
Delhi High Court didn’t invoked power to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit as the case doesn’t fall in the category of rare and exceptional case. Further, it was found that petitioner was actively involved in evasion of duty and intent the parties to misdeclare imports.
Delhi High Court held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act without scrutinizing the accounts of the respondent/assessee unjustified in law and hence liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held the penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 imposable as appellant being custodian of Container Freight Station not only failed to fulfil the conditions and to abide by the responsibilities reposed on them as Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) by assisting in illegal removal of seized red sanders.
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported rough diamonds unjustified as if the Kimberly Process Certification was suspected to be faulty the verification should have been initiated with issuing authority.
ITAT Delhi held that payments received by the assessee qualifies as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under sub-clause (4) of Article 12 of Indo – Singapore DTAA and hence rightly brought to tax @10%.
ITAT Raipur held that reopening of completed assessment beyond four years without failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts is unjustified and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that once the nature and source of credit found in the books of accounts is linked to business, then any income generated out of such business activity is assessable under the head income from business and profession alone, but not under the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
