In our view, the Assessing Officer grossly erred in doing so. The Assessing Officer ignored the fact that the said amount was not debt payable by the Assessee but the same was debt receivable by it. Therefore, the amount did not represent liability of the Assessee but in fact was its asset.
There is no cavil that an addition can made on the basis of documents, which are found during the course of Search and Seizure operations if on appreciation, it is found that the said documents have a bearing on the income of the Assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that income earned by GoDaddy.com from providing domain name registration services to Indian Customers is not taxable in India. Further, income from provision of non-domain service fall outside ambit of Fee for Technical Services and hence not taxable.
Bombay High Court held that revocation of courier licence justified on account of non-compliance with the obligations under Regulations 13(a), 13(i), and 13(g) of the Courier Imports And Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
Kerala High Court held that GST notice issued via WhatsApp is not a valid mode of service of notice as contemplated under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Accordingly, appeal allowed and matter restored back to competent authority for fresh consideration.
Gujarat High Court held that GST orders uploaded on GST portal cannot be unsigned as upload on GST portal is not possible without signature. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay of more than 5 years in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) condoned as reason for delay found to be genuine. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) quashed and matter restored back to CIT(A).
ITAT Allahabad held that in the absence of any comparable cases, the past history of the assessee, which has been accepted in many assessments under section 143(3) of the Act, cannot be overlooked. Accordingly, directed to assess net profit @3.5% instead of 7%/5% of contractual receipts.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some parties didn’t respond to the notice of AO, entire expenditure cannot be held as non-genuine. Accordingly, deletion of addition by CIT(A) upheld.
Therefore, the amount distributed by it to the Petitioner would not qualify as exempt dividend income under Section 10(34) of the Act. This to our mind would be merely a “change of opinion”.
