ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69A towards unexplained cash found during course of search cannot be sustained since reconciliation of cash with concerned sales invoices duly produced. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed to that extent.
ITAT Mumbai held that consulting charges is revenue item and accordingly, foreign exchange loss arising thereon is allowable as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition made on account of unexplained out of books cash transaction merely on the basis of certain information without cogent evidence or plausible reasoning has not substance to survive in eye of law. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that adjustments made by Central Processing Centre [CPC] under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is deleted since the entire adjustments were on account of technical glitches of the CPC system.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused who is already in custody for a period of more than 6 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act]. Accordingly, bail granted.
NCLAT Delhi held that possession of unit by virtue of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not admissible in case the agreement to sell is unregistered. Accordingly, sale consideration paid is directed to be refunded.
NCLAT Delhi held that application for intervention filed under section 59(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] beyond the period of limitation of three years is time barred.
Orissa High Court entertained writ invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution since tax is being assessed twice on the same transaction and double taxation is prohibited. Accordingly, order set aside.
Calcutta High Court held that application u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 decided by Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction and not a Commercial Court inasmuch as the dispute between the parties is a commercial dispute is without jurisdiction.
Telangana High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceeding by issuance of notice without following faceless procedure is bad-in-law. Accordingly, notice issued u/s. 148A and section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained.
