ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply in the matter of non-utilisation of amounts received towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. Thus, appeal allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that the litigant cannot be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the consultant or Advocate and disown himself or herself at any time to seek relief for condonation of delay. Accordingly, cost imposed for procedural delay.
Solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in the bank account during demonetization period remaining unexplained, amounting to Rs.10.00 lakhs.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act by PCIT in absence of any supporting documents/ materials justifiable. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai held that the Investigation Report is administrative and fact finding in nature as it does not purport to decide the lis or contest between the contending parties by a statutory authority. Thus, investigation report is not appealable order.
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of Basic Customs Duty BCD under notification no. 25/2005 eligible in case of import of ‘Digital Still Image Video Cameras’. Accordingly, appeal allowed with consequential benefits.
ITAT Chennai held that initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act confirmed by CIT(A) based upon correct understanding and appreciation of facts of the case vis-à-vis contemporaneous statute justifiable.
ITAT Delhi held that merely seizure of share certificate cannot be considered as incriminating material on its own unless other corroborative evidence are found during the search. Accordingly, appeal of the department dismissed.
ITAT Surat held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization restricted to 10% of total deposit since assessee fully substantiated the cash deposit showing sufficient withdrawal. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
Madras High Court directed to grant an opportunity of being heard on payment of 25% of disputed taxes in the case of fraudulent availment of input tax credit on the basis of bogus invoices.
