ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act treating share transactions as bogus merely on the basis of statement of the broker is unsustainable and bad-in-law.
Delhi High Court held that the renovation and refurbishment of the rooms, including washrooms and other facilities in the hotel which only improves efficiency of source of profit/income are revenue expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Leave & License Fee is assessable under the head “Profits & Gains of Business” and not under “Income from House Property”.
Delhi High Court held that ITAT misdirected itself on facts as addition was made on presumptive income without considering the loss in trading in equity and commodities and hence matter remanded to ITAT.
CESTAT Kolkata held that circular cannot impose new condition and restrict scope of the exemption notification. Accordingly, demand of customs duty based on condition imposed vide circular no. 24/98- Cus unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 unwarranted for non-reflection of investment in Schedule of Foreign Assets in return as it was not malafide or dishonest breach/ non-disclosure.
CESTAT Kolkata held that order of Commissioner (A) remanding the matter set aside as the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner has taken into account all such elements at the time of finalisation of provisional assessment.
Kerala High Court held that petitioner didnt filed any document for the change of his business place nor supported the claim that business was being run from the registered address. Accordingly, cancellation of GST registration upheld.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to an undertaking developing and building housing projects. The same is not applicable to a partner in a joint venture/partnership firm.
ITAT Kolkata held that exercising revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act purely on facts which are verifiable from records of the assessee is not justifiable and hence liable to be quashed.
