Bombay High Court held that if municipal rateable value doesn’t depict correct annual value, AO can make independent enquiry under section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and determine the sum which the property is reasonably expected to fetch for purpose of determining annual value u/s. 22.
CESTAT Chennai held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] has jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice [SCN] in the case of drawback. Accordingly, plea of appellant of DRI officers lacked jurisdiction failed.
Madras High Court held that delay of one day in filing of an appeal before appellate authority is condoned since reason for delay appears to be genuine. Accordingly, delay condoned and respondent/ department directed to take appeal on record.
While so, the 2nd respondent sent a communication to the petitioner dated 14.05.2020 stating that relief under Section 90 of the Act i.e. Foreign tax credit was not considered, for the reason that Form 67 was not submitted along with income tax return.
ITAT Pune held that addition towards bogus purchases adopting profit rate of 5% is justifiable since suppliers neither responded to notices issued u/s. 133(6) nor appeared before AO in response to summons issued u/s. 131.
ITAT Pune held that provisions of section 43CA of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply when the market value (Govt. value) is more than the agreed value as on the date of booking and market value has gone up during long gap between the date of booking and the date of sale.
ITAT Mumbai held that increasing book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act on account of disallowance u/s. 14A read with rule 8D is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai remitted matter of taxability of industrial promotion subsidy back to CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication as details and documents demanded thereon were not furnished by the assessee.
Madras High Court held that delay in filing of an appeal condoned since rectification application u/s. 161 of TNGST Act, 2017 was preferred first and due to rejection of the same the appeal was filed belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.
CESTAT Delhi held that order revoking Customs Broker License set aside on account of breach of time limit contemplated under regulation 17 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2018. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
