It is settled law that the AO cannot supplant its view as to the commercial expediency of transactions in place of that of the Assessee. In the present case, the AO’s decision to disallow the loss is based on surmises and assumptions.
Delhi High Court held that duty demand alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of goods cannot be sustained in absence of any tangible evidence. Such charges cannot be sustained based on sketchy evidence.
Delhi High Court held that there was no evidence of cessation of liability thus addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to counter the allegation that it was a conduit company without any substance. Thus, the appeal filed by the revenue dismissed.
Delhi HC rules a mismatch in GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 does not invoke Section 74 of CGST Act without evidence of fraud or suppression of facts.
Delhi High Court held that the disallowance of expenditure is not sustainable as the evidence and material produced by the assessee establish that it had incurred the expenditure as claimed. Thus, findings of ITAT cannot be perverse.
Delhi High Court held that provision of service by associated enterprise doesn’t include the element of ‘make available’ of technology to the assessee. Thus, benefit of Article 12 of India-USA DTAA available to such payment and hence TDS not deductible on the same.
Delhi High Court held that assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act impermissible unless it is satisfied that document / seized material belonged to the assessee. Thus, appeal dismissed.
Thus, personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules.
Delhi High Court held that order issued u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act wrongly challenged on the assumption that it is draft assessment order u/s. 144C is untenable in law. Accordingly, cost of ₹1,00,000/- imposed on petitioner.
