ITAT Mumbai held that adjustment of disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is not permissible adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) set aside and deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) allowed.
Supreme Court held that the discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal. Thus, all the orders terminating the services are quashed.
ITAT Agra held that confirming penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act before finalization of quantum assessment is unjust and unfair. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Delhi held that communication modules being parts of communication hubs is classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90. Accordingly, differential duty and also interest and imposition of penalty u/s. 114A set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 68 or 69A of the Income Tax Act for cash deposit during demonetization period unjustified since source of cash deposits duly explained. Hence, addition liable to be deleted.
Delhi High Court held that suo moto disallowance with bona fide yet mistaken belief that amount is liable to be offered for taxation, such mistake can be rectified via revision application under section 264 of the Income Tax Act.
Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to de-freeze bank account of company alleged to have dishonestly induced individuals/ investors to invest in cloud particles thus involved in scheduled offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Madras High Court held that Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be extended to cases where default continued beyond moratorium period. Hence, application under section 7 for initiation of CIRP acceptable.
ITAT Delhi held that interest on enhanced compensation under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not exempt u/s. 10(37). Such interest is exigible to tax u/s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145B(1). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that delay in filing of income tax returns results into imposition of penalty and prosecution. Payment of penalty for delay in filing return doesn’t exonerate petitioner from being prosecuted.
