Stay organised with these 8 digital record-keeping tips for small business owners that will help you secure files, streamline storage, and reduce daily stress.
The Tribunal set aside the prior order as the deceased assessee could not represent himself and legal heirs were not on record. CIT(A) is directed to consider all issues afresh, including denial of indexed cost and 54F exemption.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty orders under section 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act passed beyond 6 months from end of the month in which assessments were completed is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of revenue stands dismissed.
The ITAT held that the AO’s allowance of an 80G deduction without examining the background of M/s. Aadhar Foundation was erroneous. The decision reinforces that Explanation-2 to Section 263 requires verification when there is material indicating possible bogus donations.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since name of the petitioner is not appearing in any of the information and documents which were found during course of search. According, petition is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable since AO has taken plausible view. Accordingly, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial hence revision order quashed.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that gold pendant are finished gold jewellery hence classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 7113 and not under CTH 7108. Accordingly, benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty admissible.
The Tribunal ruled that the amended reassessment law does not revive assessment years that had become time-barred under the earlier statutory provisions.
Reopening notices under Section 148 were quashed as the petitioner’s depreciation claims on a slump sale of an injectable business were valid and fully disclosed.
Court considered whether admissions made by seller in settlement proceedings could affect purchaser’s depreciation claim. It held that such admissions do not undermine depreciation claimed on a bona fide slump sale.
