ITAT Delhi in Padam Singhee Vs DCIT ruled that penalties under section 271AAA of Income Tax Act cannot be levied without a recorded statement
ITAT Cuttack – Abani Pattanayak Vs ACIT- ITAT ruled that maintenance and electricity charges not in the form of deposits are excluded from property cost for computing LTCG
Read the analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s verdict in the case of Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel And Anr. vs Ambika Food Products Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. regarding disproportionate allotment of shares in a right issue by a private limited company. The court’s ruling examines the applicability of Section 81 of the Companies Act, 1956 and its implications for directors’ responsibilities.
ITAT Mumbai held that no penalty leviable on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act when disallowance has been made on estimate basis and return of income was filed prior to insertion of section 14A of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that order passed by AO u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act not borne out of any record is non-est in the eyes of law.
CESTAT Chennai held that concession fee paid by KPPL to the Puducherry Port is payment for the right to develop/ operate/ maintain the port including project facility. Accordingly, classifying the activity of Build Operate Transfer contract u/s 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 Support Services of Business or Commerce is unsustainable.
Calcutta High Court in Rajesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors. The appeal was filed against the order passed under Section 148A(d) of Income Tax Act, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. Court has remanded the matter back to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Calcutta High Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Jajoo vs Deputy Commissioner, State Tax allows filing of GST appeal after limitation period, considering recovery of certain sums of money from electronic cash ledger.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules services rendered and consumed outside India are beyond taxable territory under the Finance Act, 1994, exempting Aegis Ltd. from service tax on consulting engineering services to a US client.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that when EOU procures inputs by availing benefit of notification no. 52/2003-CUS, while clearing such inputs to DTA, EOU is required to pay duty only by way of cash.
