·
The Bombay High Court has heavily criticized
the Income Tax Department for not being transparent with taxpayers in sharing
the requested information basis of reopening action
·
The Cochin bench of the ITAT has held that the
carry forward of business loss cannot be denied to the assessee merely on the
ground that the statutory audit/tax audit was not completed within the
prescribed period
·
ITAT Bangalore bench has held that the
expenditure allowed for corporate social responsibility (CSR) of the assessee
shall be allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961.
·
The Mumbai bench of the ITAT has held that the
interest received on loan given to the related party for business purpose cannot be
subjected to provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
·
The
Supreme Court (SC) has held that for granting the exemption based on the nature
of the agreement, the said agreement should be read as a composite whole. The
SC viewed that just because the agreement contained a provision for payment on
rate basis, it would not make it a job work agreement and mentioned that
crucial elements of a job work agreement were missing in the said agreement.
Accordingly, it was opined that the contract is a pure and simple contract for
the provision of contract labour and an attempt has been made to camouflage it
as a contract for job work.