Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an unsigned order cannot be covered under – any mistake, defect or omission therein as used in Section 160. Concluded that unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law.
ITAT Mumbai held that investment in NABARD Bonds beyond the specified time of six months cannot be considered for claiming exemption under the provisions of section 54EC of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court held that refund of inverted duty structure available u/s 54(3)(ii) of the GST Act even when the supplier has inadvertently charged higher rate i.e. 18% instead of applicable rate i.e. 5%.
Delhi High Court did not granted permission to travel abroad to the petitioner involved in hawala transactions as investigation in FIR registered by Special Cell (EOW) and ECIR registered by the Directorate of Enforcement is pending and petitioner has not placed on record any cogent reason to travel abroad.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period of four years unjustified as all the particulars with regard to sale of agricultural land was disclosed before AO in full extent.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case of life insurance business, the income should be computed as per provisions of section 44 of the Income Tax Act and to be taxed under section 115B.
Orissa High Court held that since the investment in Government of India Fertilizer Bonds [GoI Bonds] was made under commercial expediency it did not bring an asset of a capital nature and the diminution in the value of the said bond are allowable as revenue loss.
ITAT Mumbai held that payments/compensation paid by developer is in the nature of hardship allowance / rehabilitation allowance is capital receipt and is not liable to tax.
ITAT Jaipur held that as defect notice issued u/s. 139(9) of the Income Tax Act is not in accordance with the law and hence the return of income filed by the assessee should be considered as valid return.
Calcutta High Court held that all commercial contracts includes an element of calculated business risk, thus, merely due to change of taxation statues, the root of the contracts cannot be challenged.
