The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any material establishing a connection between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entry provider. It upheld the deletion of the Section 69A addition for lack of supporting evidence.
Learn the difference between Sections 80TTA and 80TTB, including eligibility, deduction limits, and the types of interest income covered. Understand which provision applies to you and when these deductions cannot be claimed.
The ITAT held that estimating profit at 8% on deposits in undisclosed bank accounts was excessive considering the nature and margins of the electronics trading business. It reduced the estimated net profit rate to 3%.
The Telangana High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition challenging the reassessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The Court granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition, leaving all issues open for future adjudication.
The case involved rejection of a GST registration revocation application after the taxpayer failed to reply to a show cause notice. The High Court allowed the taxpayer to file a fresh manual application, directing the authority to consider it independently of the earlier rejection.
The case concerned a challenge to an order-in-original and a subsequent garnishee notice issued for recovery under the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court granted the petitioner four weeks to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy and restrained coercive recovery during that period.
The case involved rejection of a GST rectification application filed beyond the six-month limitation prescribed under Section 161 of the CGST Act. The High Court held that the appropriate remedy was to file a statutory appeal and granted two weeks to do so without examining the merits.
ITAT Guwahati held that additions could not be sustained where the transactions related to a separate partnership firm with a different PAN and different partners. The Tribunal deleted the additions due to lack of evidence linking those transactions to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that where the variation between the issue price and fair market value is within the 10% safe harbour under Rule 11UA, the issue price is deemed to be the FMV. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was therefore deleted.
The Madras High Court refused to condone a 15-day delay, observing that the delayed intra-court appeal appeared to be an attempt to evade or defer tax payment. It, however, allowed the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
