Jammu Kashmir High Court held that Tribunal rightly set aside penalty under section 271(1)(c) as AO not clear whether it was case of concealment of particulars of income or failure to furnish correct particulars of income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
Bombay High Court held that an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act can be entertained only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Thus, appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arises in the appeal.
Delhi High Court held that order passed by Central Information Commission directed disclosure of information which is entirely personal information of employees is unsustainable in law since the same stands exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
NCLAT Delhi held that dismissal of application u/s. 65 of the Code on the ground that application has been filed before the admission of the application under Section 7 of the Code is not sustainable.
Bombay High Court held that addition of 10% of allegedly bogus purchases without any cogent or convincing evidence is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, impugned order set aside and appeal disposed of in favour of the assessee.
Bombay High Court quashed the assessment order on account of breaching statutory provisions of section 23(4) of the MVAT; violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, non-application of mind, and legal malafides.
Held that in our view, since the orders revocating registration cancellation on the Petitioner’s application were passed contrary to the principles of natural justice, all the subsequent proceedings initiated thereafter, which are consequential, also have to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as notice failed to specify under which limb penalty proceedings has been initiated. Thus, penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) deleted.
Madras High Court held that order is passed based on non-response to notice and hearing notice by the petitioner. Accordingly, order quashed with direction to the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and direction to department to grant one more opportunity.
