ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards long term capital gain treating sale of scrip as bogus on the basis of report unearthed in case of third party without any cogent material brought against assessee is unsustainable in the eye of law.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of information and statement of third party without any tangible material on record is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act to be proper and just as assessment was completed in a routine and mechanical manner without due diligence and without due application of mind.
ITAT Delhi held that punitive damage being allowed as negative restitution cannot be allowed as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty demand unsustainable as charges against appellant of creating dummy units for keeping the value of clearance below SSI exemption not established.
Jharkhand High Court held that Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has acted in undue haste in disposing of the revision applications. It is trite law that if an authority acts in undue haste, malice in law is to be presumed and his action is deemed to be mala fide.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee has not discharged its onus to satisfactorily prove the incurring of expenditure for running the alleged Hotel Management Business. Thus, in absence of satisfactory documentary evidence, addition u/s. 68 of entire turnover disclosed as hotel management business sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot exercise the power to enhance u/s. 251(1) where AO has not dealt with the issue and has not applied his mind on the taxability or non-taxability of a specific matter. Accordingly, exercise such power by CIT(A) will be beyond his jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that broadcasting “Live events” does not amount to a work in which copyright subsists i.e., “Live Rights”, is not “copyright” and therefore any payment made thereto can’t be said to be chargeable to tax as royalty under section 9(1)(vi).
ITAT Mumbai held that revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unjustified as AO while allowing the exemption in the order passed under section 144 r.w.s.263 has taken a possible view upon verifying the details available on record.
