Madras High Court held that as an appeal is already filed which is still pending and statutory pre-deposit amount paid by the petitioner, VAT authorities cannot recover further sum from petitioner’s bank account or from any other source till statutory appeal is disposed of on merits.
ITAT Chennai held that as cash deposited by assessee received from petty shop owners on account of sale of its product during demonetization period was not examined by AO during assessment. Accordingly, PCIT rightly passed revision order u/s 263 directing AO to carry out necessary verification.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of expenses per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income tax Act cannot be cancelled merely because of non-specification of limb i.e., for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income under which penalty is levied.
Orissa High Court held that while exercising suo motu revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act, the CIT cannot travel beyond the scope of the issues which form part of the ‘limited scrutiny’ in the original Assessment Order.
Patna High Court held that petitioner is duly entitled for at least 5% Simple interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity.
Karnataka High Court held the charger which is sold along with the mobile phone in one set and accordingly taxable at 5% as covered under entry 53 of Schedule III of KVAT Act.
Orissa High Court held that sale of packaged drinking water in the brand name KINLEY WATER falls within the expression water but not aerated or mineral water sold in bottles or sealed containers” hence classified under entry no. 39 of Schedule of Goods declared Exempted from levy of sales tax
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002] would cease the power to attach the property when the order of liquidation has already been passed.
ITAT Mumbai held that even after request from assessee to refer DVO for correct fair market value of the subject property, AO was duty-bound to refer the same to DVO. Accordingly, matter remanded back with a direction to refer the matter to DVO and decide the issue.
