Held that AO correctly estimated the income of the assessee at 1% of the total transactions of cricket betting as found recorded in the laptops seized
Held that undisputable the cash sales and details thereof is provided, VAT payment on such cash sales is also submitted. As the cash sales is not disputed by the department, adding the same as unexplained cash deposit unsustainable
Held that an employee holding a civil post under a state is eligible for exemption towards amount of gratuity received under section 10(10) of Income Tax Act
Held that as the issue in question is in the academic interest and as there is no revenue implication as there are no tax dues and therefore there is zero tax effect, we close the present proceedings keeping the larger question on the Common Parlance Test open
Held that the 180 days window in Section 5 contemplates an end-point whereas the Supreme Court in the Suo Motu writ petition sought to protect the starting-point, which was at the risk of being defeated by reason of the pandemic.
Held that time limits placed by the legislature intends to enforce discipline in governance and could therefore be compelling guidelines or even mandatory prescriptions. Matter referred to three judge bench.
Held that benefit of carried forward business losses and unabsorbed dep. u/s. 72A available only if the amalgamation/demerger is genuine
Held that Revenue needs to adduce proper evidence to show that the goods are classifiable under a different heading than that claimed by the assessee. The onus is on the Revenue to establish that the item in question falls in taxing category as claimed by them.
Held that addition of the amount of unsecured loan sustained as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the loan transactions except filing the affidavits.
Held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdictional powers
