ITAT Mumbai held that interest on advance given to entity how became Non Performing Asset (NPA) cannot be brought to tax since the income is really not accrued to the assessee. Accordingly, addition is rightly deleted by CIT(A).
Calcutta High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 for claim of bogus capital gain sustained fundamentals of company are very weak and abnormal price rise in share is artificially manipulated.
The present petition is filed assailing the Communication dated 03 February 2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3 rejecting the Petitioner’s Application dated 15 December 2011 for seeking amendments of the earlier granted approval dated 17.11.2006.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 without granting pre-decisional hearing and without providing independent or cogent reason in the order is not justifiable.
ITAT Pune held that entire cash deposits into the bank account cannot be treated as income, only profit element embedded in the same should be brought to tax. Thus, addition adopting 8% profit rate confirmed. Appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that proceedings u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act is bad in law since case falls within parameters of rule 112F r.w. third proviso to section 153A, however, no certificate was issued by investigating officer even when cash was found during election period.
ITAT Mumbai held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) due to availability of sufficient interest free funds for the purpose of making investment in exempt income yielding assets.
Gujarat High Court held that order cancelling GST registration for non-filing of GST return set aside since tax along with interest and penalty already paid and petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the provisions of GST Act and Rules.
Gujarat High Court held that Revisional authority ought to have taken into consideration that AO has to pass best judgement assessment order without granting an opportunity of being heard. Thus, matter remanded back to AO for de novo consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that the view taken by AO was a plausible view and the same cannot be subjected to revision under Section 263 of the Act merely for the reasons that PCIT does not agree with the same. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
