ITAT Delhi held that reasons recorded for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act doesnt disclose that income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts and hence assessment order passed thereon are quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of search operation carried out at third party wherein incriminating documents relating to assessee were allegedly found. Hence, assessment was required to be framed u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act and not u/s 144 and hence the said proceedings are quashed.
CESTAT Delhi uphold the order of revocation of registration of the authorized courier and forfeiture of security on account of actively violated the provisions of the act and rules by knowingly filing the bills of entry in the name of wrong consignee and also be mis-declaring the nature of the goods.
ITAT Amritsar held that reassessment proceedings initiated on recorded reasons on belief that the specific income has escaped assessment, however, addition on some other income not having any connection with the recorded reason is erred in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that business profits earned by the assessee (non-resident) on account of the reinsurance business have no tax implications in India and existence of dependent agency permanent establishment is wholly tax neutral in India.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable in absence of deliberate intention to either conceal income or to furnish inaccurate particulars
ITAT Delhi held that amendments to section 36(1)(va) by Finance Act 2021 are retrospective or prospective is debatable and controversial and any adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1).
CESTAT Kolkata held that Factory in terms of Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act includes any number of inputs within the same premises irrespective of the number of Central Excise registrations. Accordingly, CENVAT of such inputs available.
CESTAT Mumbai held that penalty under rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be levied only if it is found that the concerned person have dealt with the goods in any manner which they knew are liable to confiscation. Role of co-noticee proved and hence penalty justifiable.
Delhi High Court held that delay in payment under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 on account of death of Managing Director of the company deserves to be condoned as the said event is extraordinary and exceptional in nature.
