Bombay High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal in PCIT vs N.N. Trading Corporation, holding no substantial question of law arises in dispute over gross profit estimation on bogus purchases.
Bombay High Court quashes ITAT order that rectified its decision based on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling (Checkmate Services), affirming Sec 254(2) limits to mistakes apparent from record.
Bombay High Court sets aside NFAC’s ₹27.91 crore assessment on KMG Wires Pvt. Ltd., citing non-consideration of key evidence and AI-based reliance on non-existent case law.
Ujjawal Agarwal, accused of ineligible Input Tax Credit use under the Assam GST Act, secures regular bail from Gauhati High Court, which cited the duration of custody and procedural deficiencies in the arrest authorization.
The High Court issued an interim direction against the CIT (Exemptions) orders that rejected the condonation of significant delays in a charitable trust’s Form 10B filing. The ruling provides interim protection, ensuring the trust’s substantive exemption claim isn’t defeated by technical filing delays while the CBDT’s new restrictive guidelines are under judicial scrutiny.
Lawyer’s office constituted a professional, not commercial, activity, and use of an air-conditioned basement for such purpose did not violate Section 252 of the NDMC Act when consistent with MDP 2001 and Building Byelaws, 1983.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment based on direction of CIT(A) cannot be sustained since the period of limitation prescribed under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act has expired. Accordingly, reassessment notice u/s. 148 quashed and petition is allowed.
Madras High Court held that deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act not eligible in absence of any demonstrable evidence regarding any expense incurred towards eligible project to substantiate development of eligible project.
Limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act did not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings as Rule 68B of the IT Act had no mandatory application to recoveries under the RDDB Act
Form 3CL was not a determinative document for claiming deduction, and non-production of the same did not amount to wilful non-disclosure or suppression of material facts under Explanation 1 to Section 147.
