Madras High Court held that as the personal hearing has not been afforded, it is clear that principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondent. Hence, the impugned assessment orders is quashed and the matters will have to be remanded back for fresh consideration.
Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition as being prematured. It is directed to dispose the objections raised by petitioner by the concerned authority.
ITAT Rajkot held that denying the exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act merely on the ground of belated filing of return by the assessee is not justifiable.
Aggreko Energy Rental India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT Pune held that appellate authority has power to entertain any new claim for the first time though not made before the Assessing Officer as the intention of the revenue would be to tax real income. Accordingly, revised claim of depreciation on goodwill made otherwise […]
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions contained in section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted in case of the trust created for the benefit of the members / relatives of the settler who have been identified as beneficiaries.
ITAT Delhi held that by mere putting a seal as approving statement is not sufficient for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147. It proves that approving authority has granted the approval in mechanical manner without application of mind and hence initiation of reassessment proceedings invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that the provisions of a DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) supersedes the provisions of the income tax Act in case their application is more beneficial.
CESTAT Chennai held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
ITAT Hyderabad restore the issue to file of CIT(A)-NFAC as non-appearance before CIT(A)-NFAC due to unavoidable circumstance. Further, due to continuous non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by CIT(A)-NFAC, cost of INR 10,000 imposed to be paid to PM’s Relief Fund.
CESTAT Chennai held that appellant for the first time submitted certificate from the buyer reflecting that price in the supply order is without excise duty and also certificate from Chartered Accountant establishing that incidence of duty has not been passed on. Accordingly, matter remanded for deciding refund on that basis.
