ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to file of AO for exercising the computation of disallowance u/s 14A.
Delhi High Court held that summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act], is issued for gathering information and providing an opportunity to produce documents, it cannot be considered to be initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, writ dismissed as premature.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of Customs Broker licence justified since it was involved in filing benami shipping bills in the name of some other IEC holder with intend to export prohibited goods. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
Gujarat High Court held that disallowance of claim made in return cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied in such case. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed and questions of law answered in favour of assessee.
NCLAT Chennai held that appeal as prescribed under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order of dismissal of contempt petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, company appeals are dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that revision petition u/s. 264 of the Income Tax Act wrongly dismissed by holing that delay in filing revision petition cannot be condoned since the revisional authority already condoned the delay.
Bombay High Court held that in terms of section 5(1) read with Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] Provisional Attachment Order ceases to have any effect after 180 days.
Karnataka High Court held that bona fide error made while filing return in Form GSTR3B are allowed to be corrected. Further, it is held that such bona fide errors cannot be sole ground for initiating proceedings u/s. 73 of the GST Act.
Madras High Court held that seizure of Indian Currency under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 without issuance of show cause notice within stipulated time period as prescribed u/s. 110(2) is without authority of law. Accordingly, seizure memo is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Kolkata held that ownership, transfer, and transaction resulting into profit from business or profession and capital gain in respect of joint development agreement needs more verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
