Rajasthan High Court held that profits and gains generated by captive consumption of electricity is eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided for amount of understated/ suppressed net profit. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and penalty upheld.
ITAT Delhi held that when the sale consideration as per conveyance deed and circle rates are different, matter must be referred to valuation officer DVO as contemplated in Section 50C(2). Accordingly, AO directed to refer matter to DVO.
ITAT Hyderabad held that determination of sale consideration on the basis of some statements without bringing any concrete material in support of his claim, is not correct. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted and appeal filed by revenue dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition of the amount already recorded as cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition is deleted and appeal is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition, treating share application money as unexplained income, based on surmises and conjectures without making proper verification of facts with relevant materials and evidences is not sustainable in law.
ITAT Chennai held that when cash is sourced out of recorded debtors, provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69A is not sustainable in law.
ITAT Hyderabad held that trade advances, in the nature of commercial transactions, cannot be characterized as ‘loans or advance’ constituting deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e). Thus, addition towards deemed dividend untenable.
M/s. GRR Holdings is a firm was incorporated on 31.01.2014 with two partners Shri Gaddam Shyam Prasad Reddy & Shri Syed Fayaz Mohammed. The main objective of the partnership firm is to carry on real estate business.
Gauhati High Court held that sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] is constitutionally valid. Thus, writ challenging validity of the same is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of any merits.
