ITAT Raipur held that assessment framed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is invalid and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
ITAT Raipur held that entire addition of transaction in the hands of assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment not tenable since the same needs to be allocated between joint beneficial owners. Thus, matter restore back to file of AO.
ITAT Delhi held that re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act initiated due to change of opinion without having any fresh material on record is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 271DA of the Income Tax Act is justifiable since there is no inordinately and inexplicably delay in initiation of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment order is liable to be set aside as it was based on information that was fully examined in the earlier round of reassessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty u/s.271AA of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied without specifying the required documents failed to be maintained/furnished by the assessee. Thus, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since AO duly verified investment and payment of ESI/PF.
ITAT Chennai restored the matter back to the file of AO since CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence which was sought by AO. Accordingly, matter restored back to the files of AO for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Jaipur held that since there is neither error of law nor of facts, the twin condition as required to revise the assessment order is not met out and hence invocation of revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in law.
Supreme Court held that the penalties imposed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] are regulatory in nature and do not constitute “debt” under the IBC. Thus, penalty imposed by NCDRC needs to be complied with.
