ITAT Raipur held that transfer order is statutorily required to be passed by the prescribed authority u/s.127 of the Act, and an A.O cannot on his own transfer an income tax file to another officer.
Gujarat High Court held that re-opening of assessment solely relying upon information made available on the insight portal, without forming any independent opinion, is unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that reasons recorded for selecting case for scrutiny never mentioned that case was selected for limited scrutiny hence approval for conversion not required. Matter remanded to CIT(A) to decide case based on merits.
ITAT Delhi held that rejection of claim of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for mere non-fling of Form 10B is not justifiable since filing of Form 10B is directory in nature and the same cannot be reason to deny benefit.
Delhi High Court held that cash is explicitly excluded from the definition of goods provided u/s. 2(52) hence seizure of cash and other valuable u/s. 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not tenable. Accordingly, writ allowed with direction to release amount to petitioner.
ITAT Mumbai held that person who stayed out of India for the purpose of employment and/ or in search of employment will be considered as non-resident provided the stay out of India is more than 182 days. Thus, addition deleted as person is non-resident in India.
Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2018, after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs.20,98,730/-.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of excess duty paid is allowable since delay in filing of bill of entry was on account of system error. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed and refund granted by lower authority upheld.
Gujarat High Court held that passing of order u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act without considering reply filed by the petitioner by not granting adjournment time as prescribed u/s. 148A(b). Thus, order quashed and matter remanded back.
Madras High Court held that the recording of satisfaction note is pre- requisite before initiating proceeding under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. In absence of the same, assessment order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
