The ITAT Chandigarh dismissed the appeal of Svetlana Gorodinskaia, ruling that unexplained cash of ₹4,07,000/- found during a survey operation must be taxed as “unexplained money” under Section 69A and subjected to the higher tax rates of Section 115BBE
The ITAT Jaipur dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263. The Tribunal ruled that the income declared as excess stock during a survey must be taxed under Section 115BBE at a higher rate because the assessee failed to prove a direct nexus between the excess stock and suppressed regular business profits.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeals of KPC Medical College And Hospital, setting aside penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAA, ruling that the show cause notices were invalid for failing to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars).
NCLT Hyderabad held that equity investment is not a loan and doesn’t fall within the meaning of ‘operational debt’ under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 9 of IBC for initiation of IBC dismissed.
Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)’s estimation of 12.5% disallowance on ₹2.19 crore alleged bogus purchases, dismissing both assessee’s plea for reduction and Revenue’s demand for higher addition.
The court found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the declared profit rates were comparable to previous years, distinguishing the case from bogus purchases precedents.
The Calcutta High Court, in Abdul Mannan Vs ITO, set aside a ₹50,000 cost imposed by the ITAT for the restoration of a tax appeal, citing the assessee’s small-trader status and dependency on a negligent consultant.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that benefit of concessional rate vide notification no. 62/2004-Cus dated 12.05.2004 is denied on import of rectangular shape gold bars as manufacturers or refiners serial numbers not found engraved on the gold bars.
CAAR Mumbai held that ultrasonic parking sensors are not semiconductor devices but parts of rear parking assist systems, classifiable under CTH 8512. Sub-components were classified individually.
Karnataka High Court held that date of surrender of bank guarantee to be considered as relevant date for the purpose of claiming refund under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
