Himachal Pradesh High Court held that since all the ingredients of commission of an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied. Thus, Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the NI Act. However, sentence is reduced to six months imprisonment.
Delhi High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] cannot merely approve the conclusion of TPO without giving independent findings. Accordingly, writ dismissed as no substantial question arise in the petition.
The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that dismissing appeals in limine without examining reasons for delay was improper. It restored the matters for fresh consideration, stressing that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that post–Finance Act, 2024, an 80G application can be filed any time after commencement of activities. Rejection solely for delay was set aside and the application was restored for fresh consideration.
The ruling found that the authorities failed to examine party-wise payment limits before disallowing expenses for alleged TDS default. Key takeaway: threshold verification is essential before invoking section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal ruled that inclusion of giant companies distorted arm’s length results for a small captive service provider. High-turnover companies were excluded to ensure meaningful comparability.
ITAT Delhi held that foreign company receiving consideration for offshore supply of equipment, plant, designs and drawings is not taxable in India since entire transaction has taken place outside India.
The ruling declares reassessment void where notices were not issued through the faceless mechanism post-29.03.2022. Lesson: non-compliance with section 151A vitiates reopening.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by relying on COVID-era extensions was invalid due to procedural lapses. As a result, the entire reassessment and addition were set aside.
