ITAT Pune held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded u/s.153C for each assessment year, thus, recording of consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years (AY) would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards undisclosed income rightly sustained since assessee failed to explain the incriminating material found during the course of search. Penalty under section 271AAB too sustained.
ITAT Raipur held that application for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act rightly rejected since assessee, without any justifiable reason, failed to provide requisite details/ documents specifically called by CIT(E).
Guwahati High Court held that AO can make addition of any other income which has escaped assessment but discovered during re-opening process even if the same is not specifically mentioned in re-opening order.
ITAT Delhi held that CIT(E) has rejected application for registration u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act without giving cogent reason by disposing the matter in hyper technical manner without discussing on merits is not tenable in law.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be struck down for the failure on the part of the A.O. to put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure attributable to interest-free advances not justified since sufficient interest free funds available and also there existed commercial expediency in giving interest free advances. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court directed to consider Section 16(5), inserted vide Section 118 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, for Input Tax Credit claimed beyond period stipulated u/s. 16(4) of the GST Act. Thus, writ disposed of accordingly.
Telangana High Court held that non-consideration of objection while passing order is breach of principles of natural justice and accordingly the order is liable to be set aside and matter is remitted back to original authority to re-hear and pass fresh order.
In Peter Vaz vs CIT, Bombay HC rules ITAT erred in barring Sec 153C challenge & refusing delay condonation. Cites Rule 27, Balakrishnan (SC). Matter remanded.
