ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act sustained due to wide fluctuation in value of share within a period of less than 5 months and that too within same financial year without accurate explanation.
ITAT Kolkata held that denial of concessional tax rate benefit under section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act merely for delayed filing of form no. 10IE not justifiable since the substantial justice should not be denied due to technical lapse.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Employee Stock Option Plans [ESOP] expenses should not be regarded contingent or notional and it should be allowed as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Allahabad High Court held that the resolution applicant cannot be saddled with new claims once a resolution plan has been approved. Thus, any new liability being fastened after the approval of the Resolution Plan would inherently and palpably be illegal.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of entire expenses alleging that assessee has not started its business activity till date not justified since non-generation of income after setting up of business cannot be a ground to disallow expenses.
ITAT Delhi held that benefit of section 115AAB of the Income Tax Act availed in the preceding year cannot be denied in subsequent year on the reason of non-filing of prescribed Form 10IC. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail as no incriminating has been recovered at the instance of the present applicant in the matter of fake firm for availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit. Bail application allowed.
The assessee, expired on 30.10.2021. Notice dated 27.03.2023 u/s. 148A(b) of the Act was served on the address of the late assessee. The said notice was with respect to the assessment year 2019-2020.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that since the assessee, being an agriculturist was not well versed with tax proceedings, was unable to file required documents against addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act before AO.
Delhi High Court held that recourse to Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules for computing disallowance u/s. 14A not allowable since assessee’s computation of expense attributable to earning exempt income not found inadequate.
