Chhattisgarh High Court held that reasonable cause has been shown for non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 269T of the Act and further it is not disputed that the transaction is genuine and bona fide.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, dated 20.08.2024, denying grant of approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court held that addition towards unexplained credits against companies used as a conduit for routing accommodation entries is not justified since they are not ultimate beneficiaries. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since there is no tangible material for forming a belief that petitioners had a dependent Permanent Establishment or Fixed Place PE in India
ITAT Pune held that addition towards short term capital gain based on unregistered agreement cannot be sustained since revenue has not brought any evidence on record that possession of property is actually handed over to the purchaser.
Gujarat High Court held that issuance of notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act in the name of deceased person is not sustainable since petitioner already registered legal heir. Thus, notice and order thereof quashed and set aside.
Post completion of assessment, information was received from DDIT(Inv.) Unit-5(2), Mumbai that the share of Gemstone Investment Ltd. was a penny stock and assessee was a beneficiary from trading of the above shares.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed in as much as all the necessary information were supplied by the assessee and there was no failure to disclose any material fact. Accordingly, reopening quashed.
NCLAT Delhi held that statutory provisions of section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] empowers resolution professional to file application for avoidance of preferential transactions. Hence, application filed by homebuyers rightly not entertained.
Bombay High Court held that since issue already examined during the course of assessment proceedings, re-opening of assessment on same issue amounts to change of opinion. Thus, re-opening based on change of opinion is not sustainable.
