Supreme Court held that for a Resolution Plan containing a combination should be examined by Committee of Creditors [CoC] only after prior approval from Competition Commission of India [CCI].
ITAT Rajkot held that addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deleted since assessee sufficiently proved that all the payments are made from wife’s NRI account.
ITAT Chennai held that when the cash is sourced out of recorded sales, the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked since sales have already been offered to tax and taxing same again u/s. 69A would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee has duly explained the source of his share of the investment made in the property purchased. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Patna held that addition towards unexplained income upheld since assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and addition upheld.
ITAT Pune held that once primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails then AO doesn’t possess jurisdiction to tax any other income in reassessment order. Hence, re-assessment is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside in as much as the source of cash deposits duly explained. Accordingly, appeal restored to AO with direction to re-adjudicate the issue.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on documents seized from third party is liable to be set aside since assessing officer failed to tie contact between seized material and the assessee company. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that material/ information referred by AO in reasons recorded cannot be held to be tangible material hence reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without tangible material is invalid.
It thus held that the limits that the Board could prescribe would only apply to an initial or an ordinary annual contribution. Any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would thus not be rendered as a disallowable expense.
