ITAT Chandigarh held that addition on account of failure to provide necessary explanation in respect of source of cash deposits in bank confirmed without considering explanation set aside with one more opportunity to assessee in the interest of substantial justice and fair play.
ITAT Bangalore held that the interest income received on temporary Fixed Deposits is eligible for exemption under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
NCLAT Delhi held that struck off the name of the company from the register of Registrar of Companies sustainable as Audited Financial Statement of two immediately preceding Financial Year reflect ‘zero revenue’ from its operations.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act applies only in case of transfer of land or immovable property. Invocation of deeming provision of section 50C in case of mere transfer of right in property accrued under agreement without transfer of title is unjustifiable.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that Chartered Accountant certificate was provided for quantification of tax, however, the said certificate was not discussed. It is settled law that certificates given by Experts in the respective fields cannot be ignored without cogent reasons.
CESTAT Kolkata held that providing operational or administrative assistance in any manner or providing infrastructural support service or managing distribution and logistics service, fall within the ambit of ‘Business Support Service’.
Delhi High Court held that restrictions and conditions to issuance of registration certificate to Haj Group Organizers (HGO) not imposed on account of late payment of GST as it would affect the pilgrims who have registered with HGO to undertake pilgrimage.
ITAT Mumbai held that no penalty leviable on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act when disallowance has been made on estimate basis and return of income was filed prior to insertion of section 14A of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that order passed by AO u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act not borne out of any record is non-est in the eyes of law.
CESTAT Chennai held that concession fee paid by KPPL to the Puducherry Port is payment for the right to develop/ operate/ maintain the port including project facility. Accordingly, classifying the activity of Build Operate Transfer contract u/s 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 Support Services of Business or Commerce is unsustainable.
