CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty imposed under Sub-Regulation 8 of Regulation 12 cannot be inclined for lack of due diligence on the part of the employee of CFS especially when the department did not find anything wrong when compared to employees of other CFS.
Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, without indicating basis for having a reason to belief that income has escaped assessment, merely based on change of opinion is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Kolkata remanded the matter back to CIT(A) as relief was granted to the assessee on the basis of various submissions which were for the first time furnished before CIT(A) and CIT(A) prior to granting relief didn’t conduct any enquiry on the same.
ITAT Raipur held that assessee-society not being wholly and substantially financed by the government is not entitled for claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High Court held that failure to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act results in rendering the final assessment as one without jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court held that rejection of benefit under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV) unjustified as pendency of prosecution was in respect of any issue and not in respect of tax arrears.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is entitled to make additional claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act on the strength of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka even though the same was not included while filing return of income.
ITAT Kolkata held that Joint Venture is not required to deduct TDS u/s. 194C from the payments made to one of its constituents for execution of work awarded to it as no contractual relation exists. Further, Joint Venture is also not required to deduct TDS u/s. 194H from payments made to another constituent as compensation.
Delhi High Court didn’t invoked power to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit as the case doesn’t fall in the category of rare and exceptional case. Further, it was found that petitioner was actively involved in evasion of duty and intent the parties to misdeclare imports.
Delhi High Court held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act without scrutinizing the accounts of the respondent/assessee unjustified in law and hence liable to be set aside.
