ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act are application only when there is transfer of any asset to the partners account from the firm. Accordingly, section 45(4) cannot be invoked in case of incremental capital brought in by the new partner.
ITAT Kolkata held that compensation received for failure of performance guarantee parameter of capital assets [Wind Turbine Generators] is in nature of capital receipt and hence outside the purview of taxation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Orissa High Court held that disallowance of input tax credit under GST without granting proper opportunity to substantiate the claim is not justified. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed is liable to be set aside and matter remanded back.
ITAT Jodhpur held that issuance of re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act to non-existent firm and to deceased partners is invalid issuance of notice. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is liable to be set aside since there were justifiable reasons for the assessee trust of having remained unaware about the on-going appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). Accordingly, matter restored back for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court held that that Section 68 of the Act as was in force prior to 01.04.2023, did not require the assessee to explain the source of the source of funds in case of unsecured loans. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that denial of exemption under section 54F on allegation of more than one residential house unwarranted as one residential house is gifted to his daughter. Accordingly, exemption allowed and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that technical glitch with wording in the stamp ‘signature not verified’ doesn’t render order invalid as order was uploaded on GST portal which can be done only after verification by concerned State Tax Officer.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation/application dated 05.09.2024 and 24.10.2024 seeking the respondents for the refund of the adjust amount along with interest for which the petitioner neither received a reply nor the refund.
Delhi High Court held that prior approval u/s. 151 for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond period of three years mandatory even in case of extended limitation under TOLA. Accordingly, notice and order thereon set aside.
