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.
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.
