ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justified since AO has taken plausible view. Accordingly, order passed u/s. 263 set aside and appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that matter is fit to remand back to file of AO since assessee has sufficient reason to establish non-deduction of tax, however, the evidences were not furnished before lower authority. Accordingly, appeal allowed and matter remanded.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act not justifiable as there was sufficient own interest free funds available with the assessee for making investment. Thus, appeal of assessee allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that no default falling within the prohibited period of Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can form basis for initiating CIRP. Accordingly, section 9 application rightly rejected.
Allahabad High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without following condition prescribed under Rule 21 of GST Rules merely on the bass of reflection of HSN/SAC Code in registration application is not sustainable.
Karnataka High Court held that statutory upper limit of maximum stamp duty INR 25 crores under the Karnataka Stamp (Second Amendment) Act, 2022 is not applicable to the additional duty levied under section 3B the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] is not maintainable due to pre-existing dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that amount in locker being cash received on sale of flat which is already assessed to capital gain. Accordingly, addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash rightly deleted by CIT(A). Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that providing unreasonably short period of time of six days for furnishing reply vide notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is against the mandate of law and hence liable to be set aside.
Kerala High Court held that owners of buildings are liable to pay the annual property tax demanded in the respective demand notices at the revised rates from a period three years prior to the date of demand, after deducting the property tax already paid.
