ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied as investment was made within the time limit specified under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of job work expenses in absence of any culpable evidence, merely on the standalone base of non-compliance of summons served u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that approval granted under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act cannot be withdrawn on the allegation of violation of certain compliance conditions, once the threshold conditions is duly satisfied.
CESTAT Delhi with regard to anti-dumping duty on imports provided the relief of modification of the ‘product under consideration’ to ‘Saturated Fatty Alcohol with a carbon chain length of C12, C14, C16 and C18.
CESTAT Delhi held that Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to issue the notice under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Accordingly, order passed thereon deserved to be set aside.
Gujarat High Court held that once the primary onus is discharged by the assessee, it is the assessing officer who will need to make an inquiry under Section 133(6). Addition unsustainable in absence of such inquiry.
ITAT Surat held that addition of entire contractual receipt is unsustainable in law as the entire receipt cannot be treated as income. In absence of any material to show net profit rate, presumptive net profit rate of 8% is to be considered as estimated income.
ITAT Delhi held that addition merely on the basis of bald statement under section 153A of the Income Tax Act without any incriminating material is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that as per CBDT Instruction nos. 20/2015 and 5/2016 read with DGIT(Vigilance) letter dated 30th November, 2017 before venturing into other issues outside the scope of limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer should have taken prior approval of PCIT/CIT. Failure of prior approval would render the assessment order bad in law.
ITAT Cochin held that agricultural income recorded on estimated basis needs to accepted as it was supported by all the possible evidence for estimating income. Revenue has not brought anything on record to show the income estimated and the percentage of expense claimed is not correct.
