ITAT Delhi held that External Development Charges (EDC) is an advance collected to provide common facilities and other services to the prospective flat owners. Since, the same is collected on approval of HUDA, it cannot form part of Profit and Loss Account. Accordingly, addition towards the same rightly deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that agriculturist are not required to maintain books of accounts as provisions of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, exemption claim u/s. 10(1) allowed.
Bombay High Court held that entire process of according sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act for initiation of reassessment granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind is unjustified and hence reassessment proceedings quashed.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandatory on account of shortage detected during the course of search. Accordingly, penalty upheld.
CESTAT Delhi held that in absence of evidence of over-valuation of export goods, the transaction value was wrongly rejected under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Thus, value declared in shipping bills accepted.
ITAT Delhi held that Rule 128(9) nowhere debars claim of Foreign Tax Credit on account of delay in furnishing Form No. 67. The provisions contained under Rule 128(9) are directory and accordingly, allowed the credit of FTC.
Delhi High Court held that passing of a draft assessment order as mandated under section 144C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory prior to passing of final assessment order. Accordingly, order liable to be set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that restriction of addition to Rs. 1.45 crore from Rs. 9 crore towards unexplained cash credit on account of share application money by CIT(A) justified as the same was based on evidences.
Karnataka High Court held that passing of order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act beyond period of four year is barred by limitation. Accordingly, impugned order set aside.
Madras High Court condoned the delay in filing of an appeal before concerned authority as delay occurred in searching relevant documents to disprove the allegation of business transaction undertaken with a non-existent entity.
