CESTAT Mumbai held that unreported cenvat credit doesn’t lapse merely the same is not shown in ST-3 return. Thus, denomination as anything other than procedural lapse in not reporting the existence of such credit, the impugned order cannot survive.
Jharkhand High Court held that nature of allegations of disproportionate assets beyond known source of income, corruption and various illegal action against Hon’ble Member of Parliament cannot be said to be Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 towards unsecured loans merely relying on retracted statement cannot be sustained. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
ITAT Pune held that interest income earned by cooperative society on deposits made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i). Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Pune held that addition by invoking provisions of section 43CA of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since the difference between the Stamp Duty Value and agreement value is less than the allowable limit of 5%.
Madras High Court directs customs department to reconsider suspension order suspending license of Container Freight Station [CFS] due to unblemished track record of the petitioner. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
ITAT Delhi held that only the estimation profit element has to form subject matter of addition in case of bogus accommodation entries. Accordingly, CIT(A) order directing @2.5% on total bogus accommodation entry upheld.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand of anti-dumping duty in terms of notification no. 15/2014-CUS(ABD) cannot be sustained since no evidences established that the goods were either manufactured or supplied from China or were routed through Taiwan after being supplied from China.
ITAT Cuttack held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained since issue already considered during original assessment by AO and hence reopening amounts to change of opinion. Accordingly, order quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that permission of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period of three years is to be obtained only from Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Here, permission obtained from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax is invalid.
