ITAT Mumbai ruling in DCIT Vs Sai Sugam Enterprises. declares penalty notices under section 274 as invalid if not specifying charge against assessee.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the investigation report cannot be obtained under Section 212(13) of the Companies Act, 2013 if the Person seeking report is not concerned with the case in any manner or in other words, do not comply the mandate of Section 212(1)(a) to (d) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Bombay High Court held that filing of refund application u/s. 27 of the Customs Act after more than two years of date on which excess duty payment was done is clearly beyond the period of one year as contemplated by the Customs Act and hence is barred by limitation.
CESTAT Bangalore upholds customs redemption fine & penalty for importing second-hand ETL Liners, which are restricted under Foreign Trade Policy.
ITAT Delhi held that as there is no copyright on live events, the license fees for live and non-live transmission right cannot be taxed as royaty in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT questioned whether notice issued under section 263 of the Act was properly served to assessee, as this is fundamental for upholding principles of natural justice.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied by invoking another sub-section of 80P. Accordingly, disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P deleted.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High court observed that ChatGPT cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process.
In present facts of the case the matter was compromised on the first day of hearing wherein the broadcasting of the plaintiff’s jersey was in dispute without the permission of the plaintiff.
