The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals after holding that the additions qualified for deduction under Section 80IB, making the entire exercise revenue neutral despite disagreeing with the Tribunal’s approach.
The Gujarat High Court held that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 could not be sustained where allowing higher depreciation would not result in any escapement of income chargeable to tax. It ruled that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion and quashed the proceedings.
The Gujarat High Court held that DGCEI falls within the scope of law enforcement agencies under Clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular, making the exception to departmental appeal monetary limits applicable. The Tribunal’s contrary interpretation was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
The Gujarat High Court directed release of the petitioner’s attached bank accounts after the State admitted that no findings under Form DRC-18 had been recorded. The Court, however, allowed the authorities to pursue recovery from the company or its responsible directors in accordance with law.
The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of a Section 68 addition after finding that the lenders identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the loan transaction had been established.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of the Revenue’s appeal after it was not pressed due to the low tax effect in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Liberty was reserved to revive the appeal if required.
The Gujarat High Court held that even where on-money receipts are established, only the profit embedded in those receipts can be taxed. The Revenue’s appeal seeking taxation of the entire receipt was dismissed.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the Section 68 addition after holding that the Tribunal had properly examined the evidence and concluded that the unsecured loan transactions were not genuine.
The Gujarat High Court held that the reassessment notice issued under the new regime was time-barred as it was issued after the surviving limitation period prescribed under TOLA and interpreted by the Supreme Court. The notice, order under Section 148A(d), and consequential proceedings were quashed.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an unsigned and unauthenticated loose paper lacking any connection with the taxpayer. In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged transaction, the reopening notice and reassessment order were set aside.
