The Court examined rejection of a liquidation claim for non-filing of originals. It held that the claimant should be given time to submit documents before final consideration.
ITAT Bangalore held that claiming of amortised upfront fees i.e. 1/5th of the upfront fees paid is not allowable since the entire amount is already claimed as deduction. Accordingly, ground raised by revenue/department is allowed.
The issue was whether sale involved only land or land with a residential house. The Tribunal ruled that the property sold included a residential structure, entitling the assessee to Section 54 exemption upon deposit in the capital gains scheme.
Delhi High Court held that mere delay in the pronouncement of a judgment, by itself, is not sufficient to invalidate the decision of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT]. Accordingly, judgement of DRAT upheld and petition dismissed.
ITAT Indore held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained deposit is unsustainable in law since the nature and source of the deposit is sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition u/s. 69A is deleted.
Restoring the Assessing Officer’s findings, the Tribunal ruled that excessive salary to related directors can be disallowed when it substitutes dividend distribution. Reasonableness must be judged against comparable market remuneration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax demand order set aside since show cause notice [SCN] and adjudication order not duly served upon the appellant. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The issue was whether 100% of alleged bogus purchases could be disallowed despite accepted production and sales. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and adopted a plausible view. Mere disagreement by the Commissioner does not render the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal examined whether cost of improvement can be denied solely due to cash payments. It ruled that genuine documentary evidence is sufficient, reducing the section 50C addition substantially.
