ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act merely based on statement of the key person which was retracted subsequently unsustainable as genuineness, identity and creditworthiness proved.
ITAT Delhi held that the payment of assessee made in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act is not eligible for benefit of exceptions envisages under Rules 6DD(f) in absence of any evidence supporting identity and genuineness of the supplier.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that when the agreement between the service provider and recipient is for a particular job and not for supply of man power, the activity cannot be classified under ‘Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’.
Kerala High Court held that the property tax can be levied on the building which becomes capable of use for residential purposes or other purposes. Hence, municipality is entitled to recover the property tax only from the date of issuance of occupancy certificate.
Delhi High Court held that as per Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of the DVAT Act a pre-deposit does not partake the character of tax or duty, and hence Tax Department can neither retain the same nor could it utilize the same for adjustment purposes towards tax liability for different assessment years.
ITAT Mumbai held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act is not mandatory or automatic and same needs to be examined depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Department has brought nothing on record to prove that the assessee was involved in price rigging of the instant share or that any form of cash had flown back to the assessee. Accordingly, addition on account of bogus capital gain by sale of shares unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai held that non-payment of tax merely on the basis of bald statement of financial constraint without proving the same is not reasonable cause within the meaning of section 80 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, demand confirmed.
ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of rental income by giving the land on lease to the LLP and non-utilization of the said land does not preclude the assessee to treat the same as agricultural income. Accordingly, the same is exempt.
Bombay High Court held that the provisions of the Civil Code could not create any right in a spouse, who is not registered shareholder of the company, by operation of law, in relation to other shareholders of that company including her spouse. Accordingly, beneficial ownership held by one spouse cannot be taxed on the basis of 50% to each.
