Delhi High Court held that ITAT misdirected itself on facts as addition was made on presumptive income without considering the loss in trading in equity and commodities and hence matter remanded to ITAT.
CESTAT Kolkata held that circular cannot impose new condition and restrict scope of the exemption notification. Accordingly, demand of customs duty based on condition imposed vide circular no. 24/98- Cus unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 unwarranted for non-reflection of investment in Schedule of Foreign Assets in return as it was not malafide or dishonest breach/ non-disclosure.
CESTAT Kolkata held that order of Commissioner (A) remanding the matter set aside as the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner has taken into account all such elements at the time of finalisation of provisional assessment.
Kerala High Court held that petitioner didnt filed any document for the change of his business place nor supported the claim that business was being run from the registered address. Accordingly, cancellation of GST registration upheld.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to an undertaking developing and building housing projects. The same is not applicable to a partner in a joint venture/partnership firm.
ITAT Kolkata held that exercising revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act purely on facts which are verifiable from records of the assessee is not justifiable and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules on the treatment of cash receipts from sale of gold/gold ornaments in case of Abhishek Prakashchand Chhajed Vs ITO.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Hydraulic Study Department of Calcutta Port Trust were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 71/80-Cus dated 26.03.1981 and Notification No. 152/94-Cus dated 13.07.1994. Notification exempts goods which are imported by research institution from payment of customs duty.
ITAT Chennai held that the termination of the call option merely relinquishes the right of to buy shares, however, there is no element of non-compete obligation inherent in the agreement and hence provisions of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act cannot be triggered.
