The Tribunal examined whether failure to separately communicate reasons under Section 24(1) invalidates benami proceedings. It ruled that reasons embedded in the show cause notice itself are sufficient, affirming that procedural compliance was met and attachment was valid.
The issue was whether exemption under Section 11 could be denied solely due to wrong data punching. The court ruled that inadvertent human errors cannot defeat a lawful exemption
Delhi High Court held that license for EOU issued by DoC i.e. Department of Commerce is not equal to industrial License to be issued by the DPIIT. Accordingly, writ petition by the bidder is dismissed.
ITAT Pune held that disallowance of interest paid on housing loan is upheld since assessee has failed to provide documentary evidence like loan sanction letter or bank certificate. Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that section 25(4) of the Customs Act is declared as arbitrary and contrary to section 25(1) and (2A) of the Customs Act. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.
Delhi High Court held that outsourcing solutions including transaction processing services and Internet/voice-based customer care services for its clients to subsidiary in India doesn’t result in creation of Permanent Establishment [PE] in India under India-USA DTAA.
The issue concerned a large Schedule BP deduction disallowed under section 37. The Tribunal held that prima facie the amounts were both added and allowed in the return, warranting fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
NCLAT Delhi upholds order of Adjudicating Authority directing contribution to the assets of corporate debtor since it is clearly established that business of corporate debtor was carried on with intent to defraud creditors of corporate debtor.
The issue was rejection of charitable registration for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal held that an ex parte rejection without adequate opportunity warrants remand for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued in July 2022 for AY 2015-16 was valid. The Tribunal held it to be barred by limitation, rendering the entire reassessment void.
