Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
ITAT noted that Parliament had taken due note that the Supreme Court had held that the goodwill arising on business reorganization i.e. amalgamation, slump sales, demerger etc. is a depreciable intangible asset under Section 32 of the Act.
Allahabad High Court has said that notice under Section 263 was prepared and uploaded on 28-03-2022 and the same was received on the fixed date and the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
“For a service to be categorized as a technical service, it has to be concerned with applied science, i.e., using scientific knowledge for practical applications, or industrial science concerning, relating to, or derived from industry.”
The Constitutional Courts would not interfere with a view expressed on interpretation unless it appears to be grossly inappropriate and outlandish.
The Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court stating that the respondent assessee was neither entitled to the deductions nor profit earned under Section 80-IB on the amount of DEPB as well as Duty Drawback Scheme.
The Supreme Court stated that the erroneous assessment order had resulted in loss of the Revenue in the form of tax. Thus, the High Court had committed a very serious error in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Find interesting rulings by NCLT, NCLAT, RBI, ITAT, SEBI, NCDRC covering legal stories on FTS under India Netherlands DTAA, reconsideration of approved resolution plan in insolvency proceedings, definition of financial debt, compensation against doctor’s legal obligations, and much more.
ITAT held that the second proviso to Clause (i) of Section 40(a) just like second proviso to clause (ia) of Section 40(a) was inserted to remove an anomaly and were therefore curative and declaratory in nature. Hence, it had to be given retrospective effect.
ITAT reiterated that IBC has overriding effect on all the acts including Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’) which has been specifically provided under Section 178(6) of the IT Act as amended w.e.f. 01-11-2016.
Supreme Court: In the case where the Revenue had challenged Bombay High Court’s judgment affirming Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)’s order for
Madras High Court: S M Subramaniam, J. upheld the decision taken by Indian Banks Association to unilaterally withdraw the facility for State
Supreme Court of India: Noting the donations being made to the Trust to be ‘bogus donations’ Bench of Uday Umesh Lalit and
“… in taxation regime, there is no room for presumption and nothing can be taken to be implied.”
Kerala High Court: N. Nagaresh, J. disposed of the writ petition seeking to consider and dispose of appeals by the appellant prior
Punjab and Haryana High Court: This order disposed of five appeals filed by revenue under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961