Court held that maintenance charges in a housing society are recurring liabilities, and claims filed within six years remain valid under Section 92 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the Buckeye Trust petition after the ITAT President assigned the matter to a new bench, following a High Court order that restrained a Judicial Member involved in an allegedly AI-driven decision from hearing the case.
The ITAT addressed whether a ₹ 28.94 Cr penalty was time-barred, focusing on whether the penalty initiation date starts with the AO’s satisfaction or the Addl. CIT’s notice.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of ‘reasons to suspect’ rather than on ‘reason to believe’ is invalid in the eye of law. Held that passive reliance on third-party intelligence would render the reopening invalid as it reflected merely a ‘reason to suspect’.
Calcutta High Court held that writ petition is not entertained due to availability of alternative efficacious remedy under the provisions of Income Tax Act against the final assessment order. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai held that there would be no Security Interest which could be said to have been created in absence of there being any Registered Sale Deed. Thus, by not registering the MoDT, retention of title deeds of property of Corporate Debtor not justifiable.
Delhi High Court held that license fees paid for use of goodwill is allowable as business expenditure. Accordingly, the same is deductible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a rectification order under Section 154, holding that a debatable issue regarding provision for construction expenses is not a “mistake apparent from record.” The ruling reinforces that Section 154 cannot be used to make additions that require a long-drawn process of reasoning or legal interpretation.
The ITAT followed its earlier ruling for the German financial institution, confirming that the management/processing fee was a component of the loan financing and not a fee for technical services. The decision directed the deletion of the entire addition, reinforcing that the taxability of fees must be determined based on their underlying nature and link to the principal loan.
The Tribunal ruled that the cross-charged fee for use of third-party software does not qualify as Royalty as the payment is for a copyrighted article and not the transfer of copyright rights. This decision deletes a significant addition, reaffirming that the make available clause in the DTAA was not satisfied.
