Karnataka High Court held that blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
Gujarat High Court held that factum of non-use and even handing over of tenancy and later resumption of possession was never in knowledge of Corporation. Further, valuation was undisputedly changed. Accordingly, the rate which was applicable at the relevant point of time is applied by the Corporation.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the shortage ascertained during the course of stock-taking are on the basis of assumption and presumption. Accordingly, duty demand on account of shortage of finished goods unsustainable.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that mere estimate of cost by Departmental Valuer could not constitute material to concealment and therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
ITAT Dehradun held that addition of cash deposits made during the demonetization period unsustained as predominant source of income was only agricultural income and no other source of income is brought on record by AO.
CESTAT Chennai held that Upgraded Beneficiated Ilmenite are synthetic Rutile and hence classifiable under CTH 2823 and not under 2614.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue receipt generated from the operation of “Hotel/ Resort” is taxable under the head “Business income” and not under “House Property” as fixed amount was not received in fact revenue was generated on fluctuation basis.
Allahabad High Court held that the scope of decision u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act is limited to the existence or otherwise of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The same would otherwise remain subject to reassessment order passed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as the assessee has sufficiently demonstrated that strict adherence to payment through banking channel is, at times, not practicable and has the potential to severally hamper the ongoing business of trading in liquor.
CESTAT Delhi held that service of wireline logging, perforation and other mechanical job is covered under mining service only with effect from 01.06.2007. Accordingly, such services cannot be classified under ‘technical testing and analysis’ and taxed prior to 01.06.2007.
