ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of Director’s education expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to prove such expenditure had direct relationship with the business activity. Accordingly, assessee failed to prove that expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for business.
Karnataka High Court held that notice issued in the name of non-existing entity as on the date of issuance of notice is liable to be set aside
ITAT Pune held that as per third proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where the stamp value of the immovable property is disputed by the assessee on the ground mentioned in section 50C(2), the AO may refer the valuation of such property to the Valuation Officer. Accordingly, matter remanded.
ITAT Mumbai held that as conditions in second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) satisfied, stamp duty as on the date of agreement would be compared with agreement value. Accordingly, since the stamp duty value is less than the agreement value, addition unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that the income portion of the on-money is assessable in the year in which the sale of concerned flat is declared by the assessee.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proving that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customer. Accordingly, since incidence of the duty has been passed on to the buyers therefore, the refund is hit by the principles of unjust enrichment.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Revenue has failed to prove with any cogent evidence on record that the assessee was involved in converting his unaccounted money into long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains by conniving with any entry operator/exit provider. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 merely on the basis of suspicion unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that TDS not deductible u/s 195(1) on the reimbursement of mobilization and demobilization cost to the holding company. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Pr.CIT’s view that entire cash deposits during demonetization is to be treated as unexplained, is contrary to the facts on record, as assessee has demonstrated the factum of huge turnover prior to and post demonetization. Accordingly, Pr.CIT’s finding of error in AO’s order is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and accordingly revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s 68 towards unsecured loan received by assessee treating the same as bogus based on mere presumptions and suspect is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
