ITAT Kolkata held that invocation of revisionary power u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act without pointing out the error committed by AO and without recording a finding regarding escapement of income is unsustainable in law.
Held that the importer is allowed to choose the more beneficial provision and cannot be forced to opt for / follow the non-beneficial provision. Accordingly, the goods in question Peas [Pisum Sativum] was present both in Sl No.20 and Sl No.20A of the basic Notification No.50/2017 Cus dated 30.6.2017 and hence assessee eligible to avail benefit of NIL rate of BCD.
ITAT Kolkata held that as per provisions of section 23(1)(c) the annual lettable value of the vacant property of unsold units/flats held as stock-in-trade by the assessee but remained vacant during the year is to be computed at Rs. NIL.
ITAT Delhi held that ‘mark to market’ loss on future and forward contracts are not notional loss of contingent nature. Accordingly, foreign exchange fluctuation loss as claimed by the assessee allowed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the goods i.e. ‘frequency converter’ is rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8504 and not under Chapter Heading 9032.
ITAT Delhi held that assessee belonging to upper higher strata of society receipt of gifts in the shape of cash “shaguns” on various occasions such as marriages, birthdays, anniversaries, birth of a child, auspicious festivals and other such occasions is common. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A deleted.
Delhi High Court held that section 205 of the Income Tax Act puts a bar on direct demand against the assessee to the extent where TDS is deducted from his income. It is irrelevant whether TDS is deposited or not and whether Form No. 16A is issued or not.
Delhi High Court rejected granting of bail on medical ground stating that he applicant is not suffering from any life threatening condition or sickness or infirmity which involves danger to his life and for which treatment cannot be provided to the applicant in jail.
CESTAT Mumbai held that section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 may be invoked only upon material particulars being misdeclared and this detriment is in addition to duty liability determined under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable since there is no concealment of particulars of income by the assessee.
