ITAT Jaipur held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by ACIT, Jaipur, is illegal and liable to be quashed since ITO-Delhi has jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) set aside.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment based on borrowed satisfaction without there being any link between information and data available on record is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, notices are liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment framed u/s. 148A(d) without application of mind and without controverting the explanation of the assessee is bad in law and is accordingly being quashed. Thus, appeal of the assessee allowed.
The writ petitioner impugns the order dated 27 March 2018 in terms of which the respondent has come to reject applications filed by it seeking refund of excess tax wrongly deducted and deposited u/s. 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of an assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of communication from ACIT, without independent application of mind, is invalid and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Raipur held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without disposing off on merits, merely on account of non-prosecution is unjustifiable. Accordingly, order set-aside with direction to dispose off on merits.
Delhi High Court held that provision of section 292B doesn’t include passing of order u/s. 148 overlooking error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, order passed overlooking error is liable to be set aside.
This is because the granite blocks, which had been exported by the petitioner, were zero rated goods and consequently, the relevant date would be explanation 2 (a) (i) to Section 54 (14) of the CGST Act.
ITAT Lucknow held that addition by calculating sales on hypothetical basis and completely ignoring various evidences submitted during course of assessment proceedings is unjustifiable. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition is deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money not legally sustainable since nature and source of cash deposits duly explained. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
