Explore Madras High Court’s decision on M/s. Sakthi Industries’ challenge against CGST Rule amendment in 2023. Analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 115BBE not invocable in case of addition u/s. 69A towards unexplained money as assessee is having only one source of income from business and claims that source for cash deposits is out of sales of the year.
ITAT Delhi held that salary income not taxable in India both u/s. 9(1) as services are rendered outside India and also not taxable under Article 15(1) of India-Netherland DTAA as required conditions satisfied.
ITAT Delhi held that the additions/disallowance, devoid of any incriminating material found during the course of search, cannot validate the assessment orders framed u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly, assessment orders u/s 153C cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that technical know-how fee received by the assessee falls under the category of royalty as defined in Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act and hence is eligible for deduction u/s. 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act justified as assessment order was passed by AO without proper inquiry and verification with regard to claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4).
ITAT Delhi held that once long term capital gain along with cost of acquisition and indexation accepted in the hands of one of the co-owner of the property, the same needs to be allowed/ accepted for other co-owner of the property too.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7, for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of will held that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
