Held that the cash sales and corresponding cash deposits have been a regular feature of the business of the assessee and there is certainly no abnormal trend of cash sales and cash deposit during the demonetization period. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Held that payment of interest on cash loan falls within the ambit of unexplained expenditure within the meaning of Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 imposable as CHA has abetted or facilitated, may be deliberate or negligent, an illegal attempted export of prohibited goods i.e. Red Sanders wood pillars and tops.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the service charges are based on metric tons of the goods handled and not on the basis of wages of laborers deployed for the job, the activity of the loading, unloading of goods at port, cutting of bags, spreading of zola, cleaning of jetty is classified under Cargo Handling Service.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years without any tangible material amounts to change of opinion and according the same is invalid and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of cash towards purchase of land exceeding the prescribed limit is duly disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that tax deduction at source doesn’t apply to service which are neither availed nor rendered and not even utilized in India. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that on execution of agreement when the possession was also handed over, the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) and (vi) was complete and accordingly capital gain provisions gets applicable.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case of company is involved in providing illicit LTCG/ short term capital loss (accommodation entries), a substantial addition has to be made in the hands of beneficiaries and only a protective assessment can be made in the hands of company providing such accommodation entries.
Jharkhand High Court held that once penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment and hence prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act will be quashed automatically.
