ITAT Ahmedabad held that on execution of agreement when the possession was also handed over, the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) and (vi) was complete and accordingly capital gain provisions gets applicable.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case of company is involved in providing illicit LTCG/ short term capital loss (accommodation entries), a substantial addition has to be made in the hands of beneficiaries and only a protective assessment can be made in the hands of company providing such accommodation entries.
Jharkhand High Court held that once penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment and hence prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act will be quashed automatically.
ITAT Delhi held that attribution of profit from offshore supply and services to the Permanent Establishment unsustainable as assessee didn’t have any Permanent Establishment in India in the assessment years under dispute.
Assessing Officer’s claims on the irregularity of additional salary payments are unfounded, says ITAT. When payments are made via cheque and duly recorded, there’s no reason to treat them as ‘outside the books.’ The assessee provided evidence that these are year-end calculations, not fictitious transactions. The additional salaries are legitimate and shouldn’t be interpolated for 12 months.
A detailed analysis of SAT Mumbai’s decision to reduce SecureKloud Technologies’ penalty for non-serious LODR violations, and its impact on regulatory compliance.
The Honble High Court while allowing the Petition observed that a trademark being deceptively similar would be hit under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademark Act, 1999 which prohibits registration of a mark deceptively similar to a mark which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.
ITAT Mumbai held that Nostro Account Maintenance Charges are in the nature of bank charges levied on transaction and the same are not subject to tax deduction at source u/s. 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance of the same by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act unjustified.
ITAT Delhi passed a significant judgment in ITO Vs Essjay Enterprises, focusing on classification of income derived from sale of agricultural land and shares.
CESTAT Ahmedabad in M D Engineers Vs C.C.E. & S.T. held that Service Tax penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed simultaneously.
