ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards sale of shares by the assessee unsustainable as such transaction cannot be alleged as unexplained/ bogus when department has not disputed investment in shares.
Jharkhand High Court held that Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [JVAT Act] doesn’t have any provision for initiation of re-assessment proceedings against a re-assessment order. In case assessing authority is allowed to initiate repeated re-assessment proceeding merely on dictate of audit party there would be no finality of assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of books of accounts merely for not providing stock details in desired format and without bringing any corroborative material on record suggesting specific defect in the books of accounts is unjustified.
ITAT Jodhpur held that levy of late fees under section 234E of the Income Tax Act is effective only from 01.06.2015. Accordingly, levy of late fees for F.Y. 2012-2013 is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘interface card’ is classifiable under customs tariff it 8517 7010 and not under customs tariff item 8517 6290. Accordingly, demand of differential duty set aside.
ITAT Hyderabad held that claim of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act not available as the flats sold are not hold for a minimum period of 3 years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unjustified as source of cash deposit on account of sale of petrol, diesel and other petroleum products duly proved.
ITAT Chennai held that subsidy received from Government of India under the Focus Market Scheme is Revenue in nature. The same cannot be at any stretch of imagination considered as capital in nature.
Delhi High Court granted the bail to the petitioner (Chartered Accountant) under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2022 based on the plea of the petitioner that he has acted on the basis of information and records provided by his client.
Supreme Court held that vicarious liability couldn’t be attracted under section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 merely based on the reason that the person was in charge of the company at the time when the offence was committed. Accordingly, criminal complaint quashed.
