CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is leviable on person who causes to be made, signed or used any false declaration or fraudulent document
Read how ITAT Ahmedabad orders fresh adjudication due to non-cooperation of tax consultant in furnishing property investment details in Pravinchandra Naranbhai Patel case.
CESTAT held that number of appeals should correspond with number of distinct decisions or orders, not number of order numbers in an original order. Essentially, if a single order-in-original has multiple numbers, it doesn’t necessitate multiple appeals.
Delhi High Court held that since no income chargeable to tax arose in the hands of the non-resident, as per the provisions of the Act, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) unjustified.
Madras High Court held that Credit note u/s 34 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 not required when goods were being returned without even being received by the recipient. Accordingly, detention of goods for non-issuance of Credit note unwarranted.
ITAT Delhi held that software licence fee received as reimbursement, in absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, is not taxable. Accordingly, addition towards the same deleted.
ITAT Bangalore remanded the matter back to AO for fresh consideration as assessee didn’t proved existence of business exigency in making payment in cash and AO didn’t carried necessary enquiry before making addition u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
NCLAT Delhi requested the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt of India to get detailed enquiry/ investigation by an appropriate authority/agency as in number of court proceedings the parties are coming with fabricated document.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained expenditure merely on the basis of suspicion without any other support is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act justified as assessee trust having multiple objects doesn’t satisfy the condition of ‘solely for educational purposes’.
