Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition on account of unaccounted sales based on estimated production yield in complete absence of any adverse material is rightly deleted. Accordingly, substantial question is answered in favour of assessee.
ITAT Chennai held that revisionary powers exceeded by PCIT since rectification order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, order of PCIT u/s. 263 quashed.
NCLAT Delhi held that order of Adjudicating Authority refusing approval of resolution plan justified since deed claimed by Corporate Debtor is doubtful and questionable and accordingly, asset cannot be treated as asset of Corporate Debtor.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition made by application of provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act justifiable since SRO rates rightly adopted in absence of any objection from assessee company.
Gujarat High Court held that provisions of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked only at the time of assessment and not at the time of grant of registration under Section 12A of the Act. Accordingly, writ disposed as devoid of merits.
Bombay High Court held that denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for delay of mere 29 days in filing of Form No. 10B is not justifiable since denial of exemption is likely to cause genuine hardship to the Charitable Trust.
NCLAT Delhi held that order directing vacation of premise granted under leave and licence agreements granted by Corporate Debtor due to CIRP is justifiable. Accordingly, impugned order upheld and additional time grated to vacate the premises.
ITAT Nagpur held that deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act admissible in case of interest earned from fixed deposit with bank. Accordingly, deduction claimed by the assessee is allowed by deleting the addition.
ITAT Delhi held that regular assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without aid of section 153C despite satisfaction note from AO of searched person is not supportable in law. Thus, assessment framed u/s. 143(3) is void ab-initio.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-deployment of auxiliary equipment post completion of project doesn’t amount to violation of Project Import Regulations, 1986. Accordingly, appeal allowed and impugned order is set aside.
