ITAT Hyderabad held that no records brought suggesting that assessee has contrived losses by using Client Code Modification. Thus, disallowance of losses only on presumption is not justifiable. Accordingly, disallowance deleted.
Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that seizure of goods under section 129 of the IGST/ CGST Act can be done even on the ground of under valuation. Thus, power of seizure of goods correctly exercised.
Bombay High Court held that registered person making a zero rated supply under LUT may claim refund of unutilized credit including that of Compensation Cess. Accordingly, refund of compensation cess granted and appeal is accordingly allowed.
ITAT Rajkot held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act not sustained since assessee has adequate evidence supporting its claim of cash deposits. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that in the absence of new material facts brought on record by the Revenue reopening of assessment beyond the period of 4 years is found to be not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that order passed without considering documentary evidences furnished by the petitioner suffers from non-application of mind to material on record. Hence, order set aside with direction to department to re-examine issue.
Madras High Court remanded the matter as notice in DRC-01A was merely uploaded in GST portal and hence petitioner was unaware about initiated proceedings. Further, petitioner directed to deposit 25% of disputed taxes.
ITAT Mumbai held that the receipt from parking facilities is to be treated as business income instead of income from other sources since the same was already accepted as business income in earlier assessment years.
ITAT Jaipur held that the assessee has sufficient amount of interest free fund to make investment yielding exempt income, therefore, disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act not justified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 36(1)(va) delayed payment of PF & ESIC has to be treated as income of the assessee. Hence, alternate claim of deduction of the same u/s. 37(1) of the Act is not acceptable.
