ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in law since Assessing Officer examined the aspect of disallowance of bogus losses on sale of steel scrap and took plausible view.
The said order was challenged before the appellate authority. By order dated 25.11.2024, the appeal was allowed and was remanded back for fresh consideration on noticing that the order impugned therein was passed ex-parte.
The petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant, residing in New Delhi. His name was included in a list of “Undesirable Contact Men” (UCM) which was allegedly circulated by the CBI and subsequently published in various newspaper clippings.
ITAT Mumbai held that the rate of tax on a short term capital gain on depreciable assets u/s. 50 has been held to be the rate of long term capital gain @ 20% as per Section 112 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Delhi restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass order after affording reasonable, adequate and effective opportunity of being heard and hence the appeal of the assessee is deserves to be allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that section 28(9) of Customs Act mandates adjudication of show cause notice within one year. Thus, adjudication of notice after around 10 years of issuance, without justifiable reason, is not tenable and hence order issued thereon is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justified since AO has taken plausible view. Accordingly, order passed u/s. 263 set aside and appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that matter is fit to remand back to file of AO since assessee has sufficient reason to establish non-deduction of tax, however, the evidences were not furnished before lower authority. Accordingly, appeal allowed and matter remanded.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act not justifiable as there was sufficient own interest free funds available with the assessee for making investment. Thus, appeal of assessee allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that no default falling within the prohibited period of Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can form basis for initiating CIRP. Accordingly, section 9 application rightly rejected.
