ITAT Raipur held that addition towards cash deposited during demonization period partly set aside based on CBDT Instruction No. 03/2017 dated 21.02.2017. Accordingly, appeal of assessee partly allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that discount on issue of Employee Stock Ownership Plan [ESOP] is allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, additional claim of ESOP expense allowed.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 270A is not leviable since neither the assessment order nor the notice issued u/sec.274 r.w.s.270A the Assessing Officer has specified the limb under which the case of the assessee falls.
Delhi High Court directed Customs Officials to ensure that old jewellery of even Indian travellers, personal jewellery which is being worn by the travellers during travel or used jewellery is not unnecessarily detained in a routine manner, so as to ensure that no harassment is caused to travellers coming to India.
NCLAT Delhi held that failure of reconciliation of accounts qualifies as pre-existing dispute. Thus, order admitting application u/s. 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ignoring pre-existing dispute is not justified. Hence, order is set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that PCIT cannot exercise revisionary power u/s. 263 to restore an issue for the purpose of verification only since restoring matter for verification means that PCIT is not sure of assessment order being erroneous causing prejudice to the revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act is admissible to the trust has exist solely for educational purpose, thus since the hostel fees charged by the trust is significantly high the activity amounts to ‘trade, commerce and business’ hence exemption denied.
Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to petitioner to challenge the impugned Assessment Order as well as Rectification Order before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
ITAT Chennai held that cash sales of liquor is the source of cash deposit during demonetization and accordingly, since the nature and source of investment fully explained by the assessee, addition u/s. 69 of 69A not justifiable.
ITAT Mumbai held that presumptive taxation scheme under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act is duly applicable to nursing home since the assessee cannot be classified as a ‘person’ engaged in the ‘medical profession’.
