Bombay High Court held that order passed without taking into account the reply and document produced by the petitioner to the show cause notice is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Delhi High Court directed 10% of the penalty amount imposed by the Competition Commission of India, the recovery of the remaining 90% of the penalty amount would remain stayed.
ITAT Rajkot held that in absence of any specific provisions under the Income Tax Act, notional income on advance cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, addition deleted.
NCLAT Delhi held that as per provisions of section 31 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Adjudicating Authority is empowered to either accept or reject the resolution plan. Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to modify/ alter the conditions in the resolution plan.
ITAT Mumbai held that set-off of losses when there is a change in shareholding involves interpretation of various provisions and laws and hence it is not a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, rectification power under section 154 cannot be invoked.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the confirmation letter was filed by the assessee from Donor, the burden cast upon assessee is discharged and it would shift to revenue authorities. The Revenue authorities cannot make addition towards unexplained deposits without making any further enquiry.
CESTAT Delhi held that appellant is not involved in the arrangement/ facilitation of the supply of service and hence the appellant is not intermediary. The service provided by the appellant qualify for export and accordingly refund admissible under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
Held that the disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund paid before filing income tax return u/s 139(1), based on the statement made in the Tax Audit Report is not permissible u/s. 143(1)(a) as did not fall within the ambit of prima-facie adjustments.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as per provisions of section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act reopening of assessment beyond four years period needs sanction from either Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. However, sanction from Joint Commissioner in the present case makes the entire reopening proceedings bad in law.
ITAT Delhi held that where two views are possible and AO adopted the one which Commissioner doesn’t agree then in such case revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not permissible for mere difference of view.
