CESTAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act not leviable in absence of any knowledge of goods of prohibited nature being imported.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as denial of claim of deduction u/s 80HH/ 80IA doesn’t tantamount to concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Surat held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization period unwarranted as booking of railway tickets were allowed by way of old currency notes. Here, cash were received from various travelers for booking of railway tickets.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that any amount deposited during pendency of adjudication proceeding or investigation is in the nature of pre-deposit and principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act confirmed as assessee grossly failed to discharge initial burden of explaining and proving credit entries in the books of account.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessing officer passed final assessment order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 143(3) without passing a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1), said order being violative of provisions of Sec. 144C(1) deserved to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that the reasons disclosed for re-opening do not allude to the material that was available to the AO which persuaded him to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. Hence, prerequisite before entering the realm of reassessment/assessment proceedings not met. Accordingly, addition not sustainable.
Delhi High Court held that tax credit could not be extended to the assessee, because it had not paid tax in Thailand, i.e., that benefit under Article 23 of the Indo-Thai DTAA could only be extended in a situation where the tax had actually been paid.
Held that there is sufficient incriminating evidence about the involvement of the accused/applicant in the offence of money laundering and accordingly the bail application is dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act is only against the person in whose possession the search material is found and not against any other person. Addition based on dumb documents without corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
