ITAT Surat held that the addition on account of unaccounted profit on estimation basis, in trading/ manufacturing of diamonds, restricted at 10% of the sales in view of CBDT instructions vide circular no. 2/2008 dated 22nd February 2008.
Delhi High Court held that attachment under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) does not result in the effacement of rights in property, it would clearly stand and survive outside the scope of a moratorium that comes into effect in terms of section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.
ITAT Bangalore held that each and every deposit during the demonetization period would not fall under the category of unaccounted cash. However the burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash.
Delhi High Court held that the consideration for the purchase of marketing and business rights for a period of twenty years is capital in nature and constitutes an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and therefore eligible to claim depreciation.
Delhi High Court held that AO is not empowered to frame block assessment merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) without reference to any other material discovered during the search and seizure operations.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of loose sheet alone without any other corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that it is an undisputed fact that loan is borrowed for the purpose of project and the said project constitutes stock-in-trade. Accordingly, interest expenditure cannot be disallowed by capitalizing it to work in progress. Such interest expenditure is revenue in nature.
CESTAT Delhi held that Policy Administration Charges is leviable to service tax with effect from 01.05.2011 via amendment to definition under section 65(105)(zx) of the Finance Act, wherein, the words ‘by an insurer including re-insurer carrying on life insurance business’ are substituted.
CESTAT Delhi held that in terms of the provisions of Rule 2(m) and Rule 7 of the CENVAT Rules, before 01.04.2016, the Principal Manufacturer as an Input Service Distributor is facilitated to distribute cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on the input services to its Contract Manufacturing Unit working on job work basis.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is a mere step through entity which collected the royalty and licence fees on behalf of its member and thereafter distributed the net income to the concerned members. Such distributed income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee
