Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceeding u/s. 148 initiated against non-existing company is not sustainable in law in as much as the department was already informed about the merger. Accordingly, notice quashed.
ITAT Amritsar held that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act when cash payment was made at one go before sub-registrar at the time of registration of sale deed. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that provision of section 43A of the Income Tax Act not invocable when there is only reinstatement of fluctuation loss as per accounting standards and there is no actual payment or remittance. Thus, appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that loose sheets picked u/s 132, falls within definition of ‘document’ mentioned in section 132(4) and therefore, it has got evidentiary value. Thus, addition on the basis of loose sheets found during course of search is sustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the assessee is dead no valid assessment or reassessment can be made in the name of the deceased. Thus, notice issued u/s. 148 upon the deceased assessee who expired prior to issuance of notice is invalid.
The Petitioner, through this Writ Petition challenges the actions of the Opposite Parties in depriving the Petitioner of access to his Invest Right app and Demat Account, linked to HDFC Bank Savings Account.
The plain reading of the above provisions of Section 60(5)(c) clearly indicates that the NCLT is empowered to adjudicate any question of priorities or any question of law or facts arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtor.
The petitioner, who was running the business of a Bar and Restaurant in Ananthapur Town, had registered himself as a dealer, under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Rajasthan High Court held that profits and gains generated by captive consumption of electricity is eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided for amount of understated/ suppressed net profit. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and penalty upheld.
