ITAT Delhi held that addition of difference between the share valued by the company and value determined as per IT Rules sustained as the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proof.
Bombay High Court held that purchases cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure (i.e. fictitious purchases) merely because suppliers have not appeared before AO or CIT(A).
Telangana High Court held that issuance of search warrant without recording the ‘reasons to believe’ is against the provisions of section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside.
Kerala High Court held that statutory charge created against dealers as per the provisions of KGST Act, 1963 and KVAT Act, 2003, prior to any mortgage made, against the dealer would remain intact, even if the property is sold by Bank.
ITAT Delhi held that adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction is unjustified.
CESTAT Delhi held that order of revoking the license of the Customs Broker is unreasonable and unjustified as there was no violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
CESTAT Mumbai held that once the adjudication has taken place under section 11B of the Central Excise Act there cannot be recovery on claim of ‘erroneous refund’ under section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
Gujarat High Court held that issued raised in reopening assessment was already considered during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer cannot be ground for reopening of assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA (3A) of the Income Tax Act Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is required to pass an order within a period of 60 days prior to the date of completion of assessment as per section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Order passed after the date will be barred by limitation.
Madras High Court held that section 84 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provides for the rectification of an error apparent on record and not one which involves discussion, debate or possible multiple opinions.
