ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained investment unsustainable as AO failed to place on record any material which would conclusively establish that the said society was a benamidar of the assessee. Accordingly, addition based on bald allegation couldn’t be accepted.
ITAT Delhi held that payment of compounding fee for violation of provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules are allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Raipur held that assessee company was entitled for depreciation on WDV on consideration that was paid by it and not on WDV that was lastly shown by CSEB, before its disintegration.
CESTAT Chennai held that input credit of duty paid on molasses used in production of rectified spirit being a final product is eligible as CENVAT Credit.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act not leviable in absence of any knowledge of goods of prohibited nature being imported.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as denial of claim of deduction u/s 80HH/ 80IA doesn’t tantamount to concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Surat held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization period unwarranted as booking of railway tickets were allowed by way of old currency notes. Here, cash were received from various travelers for booking of railway tickets.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that any amount deposited during pendency of adjudication proceeding or investigation is in the nature of pre-deposit and principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act confirmed as assessee grossly failed to discharge initial burden of explaining and proving credit entries in the books of account.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessing officer passed final assessment order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 143(3) without passing a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1), said order being violative of provisions of Sec. 144C(1) deserved to be set aside.
