ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unexplained cash deposits not justified as CIT(A) has partly accepted the cash book and partly rejected the cash book without assigning any reason. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai set aside the order and appeal restored back to the file of AO for denovo assessment, however, cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed for non-response on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Supreme Court granted bail to women who is accused in complaint filed u/s. 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 since there is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT(A) rightly deleted addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since identity and creditworthiness of share purchased duly explained. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Kolkata held that the surcharge is leviable only when the amount of income tax is computed where the total income exceeds Rs.50 lakhs. Here, surcharge is not leviable since income is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that undisclosed commission income on accommodation entries to be added @0.15% instead of 1%. Accordingly, AO directed to compute the rate the commission @0.15% and not 1%.
Madras High Court directed petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed taxes for granting an opportunity of being heard since petitioner failed to comply with the notice uploaded on GST portal. Thus, writ allowed.
Calcutta High Court held that transfer order issued under section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act lacking cogent reasons to justify necessity of transferring case is untenable. Accordingly, transfer order held as invalid.
ITAT Jaipur held that when the cash found in books are more then physically found no further addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained cash set aside.
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by CIT(A), without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits, is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6).
