ITAT Mumbai held that genuine TDS credit to Rinfra cannot be denied merely because credit of TDS didn’t reflected in Form 26AS as on account of transfer of business, Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. (AEML) transferred the income and TDS credit to Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (Rinfra).
ITAT Raipur held that unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act was received back through banking channel in the form of sale consideration of the shares. Accordingly, the same has to be brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune held that first and second proviso(es) to section 50C(1), inserted by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 being curative in nature inserted for removing hardships to the taxpayers and, therefore, it carries retrospective effect.
ITAT Indore held that as AO unable to found source of any cash loans during the search proceedings, provisions of section 269SS/ 269T of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition as nature of entries found in the cash book which were not recorded in the day book was not considered.
ITAT Bangalore held that legal and professional charges being incurred towards business are allowable as revenue expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held that interest receipt under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS Scheme) being capital in nature needs to be excluded while working out the book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that when two contradictory final outcomes is delivered vide two different orders, the reasoned outcome based on analysis of material prevails over outcome without an iota of reason.
ITAT Bangalore held that proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable in the present case as sufficient internal cash accruals available during the impugned year are more that interest free funds advanced to the sister concern.
CESTAT Chennai held that differential duty demand unsustainable as invoices for purchase of raw materials and invoices for clearances of finished products indicate that the appellant is an independent manufacturer.
