Orissa High Court held that order passed under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be construed to be an order within the meaning of Section 260A to make it appealable before this Court.
ITAT Delhi held that the pass through cost to the extent which are directly relatable to third parties, namely, advertisement and publicity; business promotion and participation in trade events are to be excluded from the cost base.
ITAT Delhi held that that simultaneous issue of the DIN number is insignificant and superfluous exercise, in the absence of mentioning the DIN number on the body of the communication. Accordingly, AO’s order with no DIN is invalid.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of recovery proceedings against deductee as deductor failed to deposit tax with Government and deductor is undergoing CIRP is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
Jharkhand High Court held that Clean Energy Cess is leviable even after introduction of GST. Accordingly, demand of Clean Energy Cess upheld.
ITAT Mumbai held that adoption of stamp duty valuation invoking provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act without making reference to District Valuation Officer (DVO) unsustainable. Accordingly, matter remanded for de novo proceedings.
Madras High Court held that initiation of prosecution for the offence punishable u/s. 276CC of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as proviso to section 276CC grants relief to assessee when tax payable determined by regular assessment, as reduced by advance tax paid and TDS, does not exceed Rs.3,000/-.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the addition towards unexplained cash credit as AO failed to conduct independent inquiry and addition was made merely for the reason that there was minor difference in amount of cash deposited vis-à-vis amount of demand draft and amount of invoice.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that time gap of 8 days between show cause notice and impugned order reveals that reasonable opportunity of reply to show cause notice not granted. Accordingly, the show cause notice and order thereof set aside.
Bombay High Court held that AO is not entitled to commence proceedings for reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on change of opinion as material facts are fully and truly disclosed.
