ITAT Mumbai held that bitumen, bitumen emulsion, cut back bitumen, modified bitumen produced by the assessee certainly fall in the category of “mineral oil” for the purpose of section 80IB(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court held that Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 provides suo moto power to the institute to initiate disciplinary proceedings against its member without any written complaint/ allegation.
ITAT Kolkata held that CBDT instruction no. 3/2016 exempt referring the specified domestic transactions with AE to TPO. Thus, revisionary order directing AO to pass fresh assessment order after making reference to TPO is unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as cash deposit of INR 4.50 cr. is income under the scheme Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) and the same is cleared by a valid declaration under the scheme.
ITAT Delhi held that power incentive granted by the Government of West Bengal is actually given for sole intention of setting up new industry and attractive private investment and hence the same is capital receipts and not chargeable to tax.
Allahabad High Court held that High Courts order directed quashing of notice and consequential order. However, the outstanding amount on web portal continued for a period of 7 months. It clearly shows act and action of the opposite party is deliberate in nature. Hence, contemnor – opposite parity i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax penalized with fine and simple imprisonment for one week.
ITAT Kolkata held that the scheme of merger/ amalgamation once approved by the Honble High Court is binding on the Income-tax authorities and cannot be disturbed/reconsidered.
Delhi High Court held that restrictions on utilization of input tax credit imposed under rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules cannot extend beyond the period of one year.
Calcutta High Court held that order passed without considering statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act which are not retracted is liable to be interfered.
Calcutta High Court held that the rates of tax as increased would be prospective and shall not affect the pending contracts and therefore would be entitled to the compounded rate of tax at 2% for the relevant period.
