The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of declaration, not the original assessment year. The reassessment addition for AY 2013-14 was deleted.
The Bombay High Court directed constitution of a special NCLT Bench after an insolvency petition remained pending despite being reserved for orders twice. The Court held that delay frustrated the purpose of IBC proceedings.
Tribunal ruled that construction services relating to employee residential colonies were outside scope of commercial or industrial construction services during relevant period.
The ITAT Kolkata held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural defect and cannot deprive an assessee of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 and the India-USA DTAA.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals after observing that the classification dispute had already been settled in an earlier judgment upheld by the Court. The ruling confirms reliance on the precedent followed by CESTAT.
The ITAT Delhi held that once income higher than the presumptive rate under Section 44AD was declared, the assessee was not required to maintain detailed books or expense records. The addition based on estimated expenditure was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi held that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the assessee’s submissions and documentary evidence in a Section 54F dispute. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing opportunity.
ITAT Delhi held that MAT provisions under Section 115JB cannot apply once a company validly opts for concessional taxation under Section 115BAA. The Tribunal also relied on consistency as the department had accepted the option in earlier years.
ITAT Delhi held that territorial jurisdiction depends on the location of the Assessing Officer handling the assessment. Since the assessee’s jurisdiction lay in Agra, the Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority should have adopted a liberal approach while considering additional evidence crucial to adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate the exemption claim.
