Bombay High Court held that AO and the Tribunal have allowed part of the commission payment as business expenditure. However, disallowance of part of commission payment as business expenditure unjustified.
D D & Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming deduction u/s. 57 of the Income Tax Act, it is important to establish that the expenditure is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. Accordingly, matter remanded to consider the movement in […]
ITAT Delhi held that entire addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of presumption is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that documentary evidence has far greater weightage against oral evidence especially when the oral evidence is contrary to the documentary evidence. Accordingly, duty demand unsustained as statutory records duly reflects receipts and consumption of goods.
ITAT Jodhpur held that disallowance of interest which is not at all received by the assessee is unsustainable and accordingly, the disallowance is vacated.
CESTAT Allahabad held that denial of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoices evidencing the payment of service tax for period prior to amendments made in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by way of insertion of Rule 9 (1) (bb) effective from 01.04.2011 is unjustified.
ITAT Raipur held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked as there is a gross failure on the part of the A.O to verify the nature and source of the cash deposits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained credit unsustainable as the assessee has been able to reasonably explain the source of gift from his mother.
ITAT Rajkot held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 non-invocation of section 115BBE of the Act on the addition made on account of unexplained sundry creditors u/s. 68 of the Act is duly justifiable.
CESTAT Chennai held that amount already paid towards the duty liability and interest before issuance of show cause notice. Notice issued only for levying penalty is untenable. Hence, levy of penalty u/s. 78 deleted.
