The Honble Gujarat High Court held that the Notification could not be said to have been published without declaration form or digital signature certificate. Only after the declaration form and documents are signed digitally that they can be uploaded for e-publishing which has been done on 06.03.2018 at 19:15 hours in the present matter. Therefore, the effective date of Notification in terms of Section 25(4) of the Act is the date of its publication in Official Gazette in e-mode on 06.03.2018.
The ITAT directed the ld. AO directed to consider only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income during the year while working out the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules.
The Hon’ble CESTAT revoking the Customs Brokers licences of the appellants forfeiting their security deposits and further imposing penalty on the appellants cannot be sustained as Appellants have provided their best efforts to establish the genuinety of exporters and they have relied upon the documents which have been issued by Government to the exporters.
In present facts of the case, the ITAT observed that proceedings under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained if the tax payer had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
In present facts of the case, the NCLAT allowed the appeal by expunging all adverse observations made against the Appellant in the impugned Order by observing that appearance for an entity being a separate company which has initiated separate proceeding under Section 7 against different Corporate Debtor and appearance of the Appellant in that proceeding in no manner can be said to be in breach of any Rules of Etiquette or can lead to any conflict of interest in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.
In present facts of the case, the NCLAT rejected the application praying condonation of delay as it was filed after 45 days of the passing of the Impugned Order and by virtue of Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the condonation cannot be granted.
The ITAT allowed the appeals and have sustained that, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015.
The ITAT observed that Foreign Tax Credit cannot be disallowed in case of not filing Form 67 prescribed under Rule 128 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 Thu by this observation ITAT have not denied the substantive benefit in case of procedural lapse
The ITAT deleted the additions made under Section 68 and 69C on the reasoning that AO was unable to establish links between the evidence collected.
The ITAT on the issue of addition under Section 68 observed that in the impugned Assessment Order, the AO has passed the impugned Assessment Order in a hurried manner even without pointing out any defect or discrepancy in the evidences and details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, additions under Section 68 were ordered to be deleted.
