Karnataka High Court held that mere non-production of the Bank Realization Certificates (eBRCs) / Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRCs) cannot be reason for rejection of refund claim specially as all the details in this regard are made available to the department.
Madras High Court held that the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act will not apply in case of initiation of search initiated on or after 01.04.2021. Accordingly, notices issued u/s. 153C are liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit during demonetization under section 68 without rejection of books of accounts is unwarranted. Further, addition is also not warranted as genuineness of cash sale duly proved.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 56(2) towards receipt of gift from HUF to be re-considered for exemption under section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO with specific direction.
Gujarat High Court held that the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit of Compensation Cess is admissible even if the goods are exported on payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax [IGST]. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and refund is granted.
Delhi High Court held that invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution unwarranted since efficacious alternative remedies under DRT and NCLT. Accordingly, writ petition is misconceived.
NCLAT Delhi held that that Provisional Attachment Order has to be treated to cease by virtue of legislative scheme under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and there is no necessity to obtain any order by the SRA from the adjudicating authority under the PMLA.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that bail application is liable to be dismissed since twin conditions laid down in section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) not satisfied. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is mere change of opinion since there is no failure on part of assessee as to full and true disclosure. Accordingly, reassessment is liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
