Delhi High Court held that TDS deducted by the employer and not deposited cannot be demanded from the employee. Thus, order demanding the TDS amount is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act without adequate inquire. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 rightly invoked as order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Form No. 35A signed by the Authorized Representative is only an irregularity which is curable u/s. 292B of the Income Tax Act and not an illegality. Thus, order set aside with a direction to pass order on merits.
The petitioner’s challenge to the notice dated 23.06.2024, issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, is premised on the basis that it has been issued by an officer, who is not a „prescribed income-tax authority’.
CESTAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings against customs broker for violation of regulation 11(d) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 not justified as CHA not required to enquire and verify the genuineness of IE code given to it by a client for each import/export transaction.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that taxation must be based on income that has actually accrued or arisen. Thus, addition towards decentralized grants merely routed assessee and simply transferred to other government agencies as per GOG’s directions is unsustainable.
Delhi High Court held that goodwill could be considered as an intangible asset and the same is eligible for depreciation. Assets acquired de-valued, hence balance amount treated as intangible asset and the same is eligible for depreciation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards bogus purchases made without proper verification of facts but just on the basis of suspicion, surmises and unverified information unjustified and liable to be deleted.
Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Hotels Pvt. Ltd. has held that in case assessee has not claimed any deduction in respect of its liability for payment of luxury tax, no question of addition under section 43B will arise.
The assessee is an NRI. During the demonetization period, the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.6,00,000/- each in his bank account. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the AO questioned the source of these cash deposits.
