A detailed analysis of the bail case involving Ravinder Nath Sharma and the Union of India at the Allahabad High Court. Get insights into the court’s judgment related to GST recovery and illegal arrest allegations.
Explore the details of the case between Voith Siemens Hydro Private Limited and ACIT regarding transfer pricing proceedings. Analyze the expenses incurred for engineering services and administrative support services, the examination of invoices, and the arguments presented. Understand the outcome and implications of the case.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as identity of loan creditor proved along with creditworthiness of the transaction.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is made in respect of expenses attributable to exempt income and not the taxable income. Further, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act should not exceed the exempt income of that year.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that grant received under Sampoorna Gramin Swarojgar Yogna (SGSY) from Government of Gujarat and interest earned on such grant cannot be treated as revenue receipt. Accordingly, the same is not liable to be taxed.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand invoking extended period cannot be sustained on account of revenue-neutrality as duty charged by Unit-I would be taken as cenvat credit by Unit-II.
ITAT Mumbai held that non-receipt of confirmation from the sundry creditors under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act cannot result into addition since parties are identified, transaction of purchase of land is accepted and reason for outstanding amount is explained.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act untenable as cash deposited during the demonetization period duly explained.
CESTAT Delhi held that work orders include the charge supply of goods and fixing and finishing of tiles/granite/marbles such composite contracts involving both supply of goods and services are rightly classifiable under ‘work contract services’.
ITAT Jaipur held that income surrendered during the course of search cannot be said to qualify as an undisclosed income in the context of section 271AAB read with the explanation thereto and hence penalty u/s 271AAB of Income Tax Act not leviable.
