The ITAT Delhi held that once income higher than the presumptive rate under Section 44AD was declared, the assessee was not required to maintain detailed books or expense records. The addition based on estimated expenditure was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi held that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the assessee’s submissions and documentary evidence in a Section 54F dispute. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing opportunity.
ITAT Delhi held that MAT provisions under Section 115JB cannot apply once a company validly opts for concessional taxation under Section 115BAA. The Tribunal also relied on consistency as the department had accepted the option in earlier years.
ITAT Delhi held that territorial jurisdiction depends on the location of the Assessing Officer handling the assessment. Since the assessee’s jurisdiction lay in Agra, the Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority should have adopted a liberal approach while considering additional evidence crucial to adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate the exemption claim.
The Karnataka High Court held that objections relating to an officer performing dual roles in audit and adjudication must be examined before merits are considered. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after jurisdictional findings.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in terms of the amended statutory requirement. The Tribunal quashed the assessments for lack of proper jurisdictional compliance.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 28-day delay in filing appeal after accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding non-noticing of electronically communicated appellate order. The Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented approach.
The ITAT Rajkot reduced the addition on demonetization cash deposits after finding that the assessee had produced land records, cash flow statements, and other supporting evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the disputed amount.
The Delhi High Court held that frozen chicken supplied to the Indian Army was not exempt from GST because it was supplied in unit containers. The Court directed reimbursement of GST paid by the supplier along with interest for delayed payment.
