ITAT Kolkata held that PCIT cannot exercise the revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the assessment where the AO has conducted enquiries and taken a plausible view accepting the contentions of the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that as National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted application filed by the assessee u/s. 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the present appeal filed by the revenue deserves to be dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that since the assessee has not earned any dividend income from its equity investment during the year disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that seized gold biscuits cannot be released as transportation of smuggled gold not justified based on fabricated transit challan and held mere general corroboration is sufficient.
ITAT Chennai held that transaction of purchase of own shares by the appellant company is distribution of accumulated profits within the meaning of section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, it is treated as dividend u/s. 2(22)(a)/2(22)(d) read with section 115-O of the Act.
Sikkim High Court held that as per guidelines of the Budgetary Support Scheme, if any unit undergoes for relocation, expansion and change of ownership, it will not be eligible under the Budgetary Support Scheme.
ITAT Delhi held that fringe benefit tax is an allowable deduction in computing book profit as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that ‘brand names’ falls within the scope of intangible assets and, accordingly, are amenable to deprecation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that the documents relating to acknowledgement claiming benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act can be accepted even at the appellate stage. Further, acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheet has been held to be a valid acknowledgment for the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
ITAT Chennai held that Once, nature of expenditure and source is explained, then the question of making additions towards refund money as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act does not arise.
