ITAT Ahmedabad sustained the addition on account of trading in penny stock of shell company as assessee failed to attain personal hearing inspite of various occasion.
Kerala High Court held that provisions of section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the Limitation Act will apply only if it is extended to the special statute.
Delhi High Court held that interim protection granted as applicant is not named in ECIR and also the applicant is not implicated in any of the Scheduled Offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
NCLAT Chennai held that ‘Order of Dissolution’ sustainable as the ‘Promoters’ failed to project the ‘Resolution Plan’ within the specified time limit.
Rajasthan High Court held that assessee cannot split up the amount charged for the sale of food and certain services in addition to the food. Hence, VAT is payable on the entire consideration charged for the food.
ITAT Delhi held that direction by CIT(A) to AO to take appropriate action for not deducting TDS from the perquisite in respect of interest free loans given to directors and to take appropriate action to tax the perquisites u/s. 17 of the Act is in excess of jurisdiction conferred by section 251 hence deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as cash proceeds already reflected in Profit & Loss account, hence addition u/s 68 will amount to double taxation.
Held that in the absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act are without jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that as Permanent Establishment (PE) exists, interest income being connected to the PE, has to be treated as business profit under Article 7 of the treaty. Accordingly, expenses incurred has to be set off against the interest income.
ITAT Raipur held that A.O after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee could not have based his assessment on the said books of accounts. Accordingly, once the books of account of an assessee are rejected, then profit has to be estimated.
