It is well settled that once a statute prescribes a specific period of limitation, the Appellate Authority does not inherently hold any power to condone the delay in filing the appeal by invoking the provisions of Section 5 or 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan is untenable since loans accepted were repaid in the same year and all the transactions were carried out through banking channels. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Gauhati High Court held that issuance of summary of the Show Cause Notice [SCN] doesn’t dispense with requirement of issuance of proper notice as per mandate of Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Accordingly, order set aside and writ allowed.
Supreme Court held that no penalty under section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act when undisclosed income during course of search is admitted and paid tax with interest. Accordingly, penalty u/s. 271AAA(1) set aside.
Supreme Court held that State Government while applying amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2002 was not justified in taking away right accrued to assessee without revoking entitlement certificate.
Bombay High Court held that serving signed copy of arbitral award to employee of the partnership firm is not proper service of signed award as required under section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
ITAT Rajkot remanded the matter as lower authority has not exercised their power to enquiry in section 131 and 133(6) of the Act to verify the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the party in case of addition towards unsecured loan u/s. 68.
It is also noteworthy that the learned Departmental Representative (DR), during the hearing, did not point out any material differences between the facts of the present case and those of the earlier assessment years.
The US Transactions were subject to the Mutual Agreement Procedure between the competent authorities of US and India under Article 27 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
ITAT Mumbai held that that reimbursement of expenses at cost is not taxable as fees for technical services since there is no element of income attached to the transaction. Accordingly, revenue’s appeal dismissed.
