Chennai ITAT set aside the assessment for exceeding the limited scrutiny scope and disallowing 80P without a speaking order or SCN. Remanded the case for fresh, compliant adjudication.
Chennai ITAT rules Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a company tax and not covered by DTAA, rejecting the refund claim. Separately, it capped the TDS disallowance at 30% under Section 40(a)(ia).
Delhi High Court held that seized amount is prima facie proceeds of crime and not lawful income hence to treat such amounts as taxable income recoverable by the Income Tax Department, prior to the conclusion of the PMLA trial or adjudication, would be erroneous. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
SCIPL Vs DCIT: ITAT Delhi deletes huge additions, ruling that WhatsApp Excel sheets are dumb documents. Suspicion isnt evidence; corroboration is mandatory in search assessments. Deletions on alleged foreign fund diversion & bogus expenses upheld.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that law doesn’t require brought forward additional depreciation from preceding year to be set off against opening WDV of the assets. Thus, revision u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustained as order of AO not erroneous.
ITAT Chennai allowed Lotus Footwear’s 100% SEZ deduction u/s 10AA for Unit-2, ruling it was a new undertaking established with fresh capital and not a splitting of the existing unit
Kerala High Court held that correction of Basic Tax Register from nilam to purayidam based on re-survey conducted prior to enactment of Act 28 of 2008 are valid. Accordingly, writ appeals of department are dismissed.
The ITAT Delhi remanded the ₹3.94 Cr unexplained cash deposit addition against commission agent Manoj Kumar to the CIT(A). The Tribunal ordered a fresh verification of the taxpayer’s cash flow, noting the lack of agreements and reconciliation of deposits with books.
The ITAT Delhi quashed the reassessment against Lombard Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., ruling the Section 148 notice was time-barred. Following the Supreme Court’s mandate in the Ashish Agarwal case.
Bombay HC ruled that the omission of GST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) nullifies all pending proceedings, as the repeal lacked a savings clause. Exporters get relief on refund claims.
