ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act untenable since amount of commission paid to a non resident outside India for the services rendered outside India will not fall in the category of income, and as such would not be chargeable to tax.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of the assessment would be permissible without there being any new or additional material available to the Assessing Office. Accordingly, reassessment notice is set aside and writ petition is allowed.
ITAT Raipur held that reopening of proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond a period of 4 years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully & truly all the material facts is liable to be annulled.
Karnataka High Court held that reassessment order under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law since passed without following mandatory procedure of disposal of objections. Accordingly, order of reassessment set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition invoking provisions of section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act without referring the valuation of the capital asset to the valuation officer is not justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO to refer the matter to valuation officer for determining Fair Market Value.
Madras High Court held that writ against order confirming demand towards difference between Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in GSTR -3B and ITC available as per GSTR – 2A dismissed due to availability of efficacious remedy.
NCLAT Delhi held that the communication of Section 8 Demand Notice via registered email address of Corporate Debtor is valid service of demand notice. Accordingly, admission of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that upholding of addition by CIT(A) and ITAT merely on the basis of non-appearance without deciding the same on merits and complying with provisions of section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income Tax Act is not justified.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed in as much as source of funds for purchasing crypto currency duly explained. Accordingly, order quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period deleted since source of cash deposit duly explained.
