ITAT Mumbai held that addition merely on the basis of confession during the course of search operation without supporting evidence is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act leviable on account of repayment of loan in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 vis-à-vis failure of assessee to prove that such payment is covered by exceptional circumstances covered under section 269T.
ITAT Delhi held that transactions relating to currency swap contracts cannot be considered to be in the nature of speculative transaction covered u/s. 43(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Calcutta High Court held that rendering of advisory service doesn’t amount to Fees for Technical Services/ Fees for Included Services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
Bombay High Court held that State Government is under an obligation to repay the value of stamps in money in case the stamps are not used and given to Collector for cancellation.
Allahabad High Court held that excessive power consumption, prima facie, establishes the intention to suppress the production and the turnover. Accordingly, the books of account can be rejected on the basis of high consumption of electricity.
Rajasthan High Court held that reassessment resorted only on account of ‘Change of opinion’ of AO and without there being any fresh tangible evidence for reopening the assessment proceedings is liable to be struck down.
Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified as the assessee provided complete disclosure of all the primary material facts during the scrutiny assessment.
Gujarat High Court held that order, making the addition of huge amount of tax, interest and penalty, passed in FORM GST DRC-07 without granting opportunity of personal hearing is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that re-opening of assessment without ‘reason to believe’ simply based on the information from DGIT(Inv.) is untenable in law.
