ITAT Bangalore held that common interest earned from investment in co-operative banks is not eligble for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) on ground that investigation has not been concluded is unsustainable as SVLDRS doesn’t exclude taxpayers in respect of whom investigation is not concluded.
ITAT Pune held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable in case the additional income is disclosed in ITR filed u/s 153A and such additional income is originated out of seized material.
ITAT Chandigarh set aside the addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act to the file of AO to test the enforceability of agreement to sell as per relevant statue vis-à-vis fresh affidavit.
ITAT Pune held that excess sugar cane prices over and above the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) fixed by the Government is to be determined as per latest statutory amendment in Section 155(19) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that the legislative history of Section 245A of the Income Tax Act indicates that the proceedings for assessment, re-assessment and re-computation u/s. 148, prior to issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, were excluded from the scope of the definition of the term ‘case’. Literal interpretation of language of section 245A is justifiable.
ITAT Delhi held that for invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 it is necessary to satisfy twin conditions i.e. one being that order should be erroneous and second, such order should be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Non-satisfaction of the conditions renders the proceedings unsustainable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the net balance of purchase consideration paid, and the value of net assets acquired is Goodwill and once the existence of Goodwill is established, Depreciation on such goodwill cannot be questioned further.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as sufficient enquiry was made by AO on the impugned transaction and hence it tantamount to change of opinion on part of AO.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act not imposable as reasonable cause shown for non-furnishing of consent form sought by AO.
