Andhra Pradesh High Court held that rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules permits blocking of credit which has been wrongfully utilized, whether it is actually available in the credit ledger or not. Thus, writ petition dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since assessee established identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 deleted.
Himachal High Court held that as per section 43-B of the Income Tax Act deduction towards contribution to leave encashment fund is available only when the same is actually paid. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that there is no case for making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee by denying the exemption under section 10(38) of the Act for the LTCG on sale of shares of Unno Industries Limited. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the Assessee Trust being purely a religious activities of particular Community is not entitled for registration as a specified violation under Explanation [d] of Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Agra held that matter of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act restored back to file of AO since Tribunal restored matter of addition towards unexplained cash deposit for quantification.
Held that these two petitions are also remanded back to the Competition Commission of India for determination/ decision in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered on 29.01.2024 in the aforesaid case.
Bombay High Court held that Explanation 1 and 4 below section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2007 cannot be declared ultra-vires, irrational or unconstitutional. Said amendments are constitutionally valid.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that entire assessments has been restored to the file of CIT(A) for de novo consideration since assessee was found to be absolutely non-cooperative and took every step to thwart/stonewall the assessment proceedings.
Supreme Court held that Chief Controlling Revenue Authority lacked any express statutory power to review or recall its own decision. Thus, once refund is granted by CCRA it cannot review the same and reject refund application.
