It is in the said situation that the captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to re-credit the amount of Rs.6,87,021/- to the accounts of the petitioners with interest from the date of debit till the date of actual credit.
ITAT Cuttack held that AO wrongly allowed the set off of brought forward loss and accordingly order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked.
ITAT Delhi held that it is proved that assessee doesn’t have any permanent establishment in India, during the year under consideration, accordingly, receipts classifiable as business income cannot be taxed in India.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash credit in current year untenable since loan is received back in subsequent year and the same is accepted by the department. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Kerala High Court directed to give one final opportunity to the petitioner to respond to show cause notice as show cause notice granted only three days time to respond.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal and passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A) in absence of any response on behalf of the assessee untenable since CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merits.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remanded the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration since CIT(A) passed ex-parte order as there was on response on behalf of the assessee.
ITAT Surat condoned the delay of 159 days in filing of an appeal as delay in filing appeal is not intentional nor deliberate and assessee was prevented by sufficient reason for not filing an appeal on time.
Directors/ signatories cannot escape from their penal liability by citing its dissolution, only the accused company is dissolved and director/signatory cannot be permitted to go scot-free after the approval of resolution plan.
Madras High Court held that order passed rejecting the claim of Input Tax Credit on the basis of the web report set aside for fresh consideration since order was passed without complying with procedure stipulated in circular no. 5/2021 dated 24.02.2021.
