ITAT Raipur held that interest income earned is not equal to the percentage of interest expenditure incurred cannot be reason for disqualifying expenditure within the provision of section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that it is settled principle of law that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the exempt income.
CESTAT Mumbai held that in either of the three options given in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, there is no provisions that if the assessee does not opt any of the option at a particular time, then option of payment of 5% will automatically be applied. Accordingly, demand unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unjustified as necessary details explaining the source of credit entries duly provided.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of foreign travel expenditure justified as assessee failed to prove the business expediency of foreign trip and therefore assessee failed to discharge the primary onus.
Allahabad High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 129(3) of the UPGST untenable as no observation has been made with regard to intent to evade payment of tax.
Madras High Court held the writ petition as premature as it is open to the petitioner to raise all the objections before the assessing authority in respect of show cause notice before completion of assessment. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
ITAT Pune held that income derived from twin land transactions deserves to be treated as ‘business income’ and cannot be treated as ‘capital gains’.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that higher redemption fine and penalty imposable as appellant is a repeated offender and is violating the Minimum Import Price (MIP) condition prescribed by DGFT frequently.
ITAT Raipur held that addition on account of discount allowed to sister concern unsustainable as assessee duly placed on record documentary evidence to substantiate the factum of having sold low-quality sponge iron to its sister concern. Accordingly, rejection of discount merely on the basis of doubts and suspicion unjustified.
