Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that contribution to Compensatory Afforestation Fund will be considered as revenue expenditure and not capital in nature
“Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has a specific bar on receiving a sum more than 20,000/- from any other persons by way of loan or deposit.”
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.
Supreme Court reiterated that to examine whether a particular transaction is sale of capital assets or business expense, multiple factors like frequency of trade and volume of trade, nature of transaction over the years etc., are required to be examined.
In terms of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, treating the loans and advances received by concerns, in which shareholders of the company giving loans and advances had substantial interest, qualified as “deemed dividend”
After examining the expenses payable and the detailed order of the CIT,the ITAT held that the CIT has correctly examined the invoices, period and purpose for the expenses which have not been paid for the last six years
It is a well-accepted principal of tax jurisprudence that the Assessing Officer cannot sit on the armchair of a businessman assessee to replace his business strategy by his own whims and fancies
ITAT said that the entire addition has been made by the AO as well as CIT based on guess work and estimation based on some alleged information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra and from DGIT that “the assessee has taken bogus purchase bills without having taken any delivery of the goods”, without applying their mind.
Explore decisions of Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies and Commissions in India with stories on supply of goods to overseas customers, question of condonation of delay by NCLAT, maintainability of application u/s 7 of IBC Code, NGT on violation of environmental norms by State, and so on.
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.
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 noted that an identical issue was subject matter of consideration of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, hence following the precedent, the Tribunal directed that the payment received in this case cannot be treated as FTS under Article 12 (5) of India Netherlands DTAA.
This roundup contains many interesting rulings including the Shiv Sena Party Name and Symbol Dispute, Negligence committed by doctors and Compensation therein, Amendment to Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act, Initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and more.
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.
The Supreme Court observed that taxation depends upon the language of the charging section and what is brought to tax within the four corners of the charging section.
Bombay High Court: In the present appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 preferred against the
While we brace ourselves for 2023, we switch on our anamnesis mode and note down the significant decisions covered in the entire year of 2022 by Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies and Commissions
Presenting to you tour d’horizon of all the significant decisions covered in the month of December 2022 of the Tribunals, Commissions and Regulatory Bodies.
ITAT upheld the order of the CIT and said that the assessee had only provided treatment to a few patients at concessional rates, which was less than 1% of the revenue of the assessee. Thus, the activities of the assessee cannot be said to be charitable activities and it is not entitled for registration or approval under section 10(23C) or 12A of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of MR Shah and M.M Sundresh, JJ explained the importance of the words “or otherwise” inserted to Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 1987