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’.
Delhi High Court held that the provisioning for Asset Reconstruction Cost qualified the prescriptions of AS 29 and the assessee was thus justified in accounting for the same. Thus, that question is answered in favour of assessee.
Karnataka High Court held that forcible recovery during course of search or investigation is contrary to law and hence liable to be refunded back. Thus, writ appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.
ITAT Hyderabad held that re-assessment under section 148 merely based on borrowed satisfaction, without any independent verification and application of mind, is invalid and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 and consequent order quashed.
Rajasthan High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act based on WhatsApp chats with specific inputs cannot be said to be vague or hit by the strict parameters of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court held that re-opening u/s. 148 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act not sustained as there is no failure on the part of assessee to fully and truly disclosure all the material facts. Thus, notice and order quashed.
