ITAT Chandigarh held that addition in the business income merely on the basis of closing bank balance unsustainable as there is nothing on record to show that assessee had any other income except agricultural income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that expenditure incurred for education of the daughter, who pursued the very same profession in which the father was, doesn’t make the same business expenditure. Father was morally bound to spend on the education of his daughter and hence the same is personal expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) already decided in favour of the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held that for invoking the provisions of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 there has to be entries in the books of account for which no explanation should have been offered. As the declaration provided by the assessee is self-explanatory the provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked.
ITAT Bangalore held that unless the non-resident, who is engaged in sale of online advertisement space, has a PE in India, no portion of receipts earned by it from sale of online advertisement space in India can be brought to tax in India as Act read with the relevant DTAA.
Delhi High Court held that High Court had disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal as the Appellate Tribunal was not functional, however order was passed when the Appellate Tribunal became functional. Accordingly the order passed in LPA will not come in the way of the parties as an equally efficacious alternative remedy available before the Appellate Tribunal.
ITAT Mumbai held that AO duly verified the TDS credit and assessee duly explained as to why certain receipts though subjected to TDS would not be liable to be offered to tax such as mobilization advance. Ignoring the same and exercising the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 in a mechanical and cavalier manner is unsustainable
Chhattisgarh High Court held that the amendment to section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, that the interest shall be levied on that portion of tax paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger (i.e. net tax liability) is effective retrospectively from 1st July 2017
CESTAT Delhi held that provisions of rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not attracted when there is no removal of capital assets/ power plant. Hence Cenvat Credit not leviable.
ITAT Chennai held that as the value of goods are duly accepted by the Central Excise department without there being any modification then AO doesn’t have any jurisdiction to go beyond the same.
