The Gujarat High Court set aside an assessment order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply regarding TDS under Section 194Q. The Court held that the faceless unit generated the order before reviewing the submission, violating natural justice. The case was remanded for a fresh decision after due consideration of the reply.
Tribunal held that deduction under Section 54 depends on amount actually invested in a new property and not on ownership proportion. Assessing Officer’s restriction to 50% due to joint ownership was set aside, confirming relief for assessee.
The Tribunal accepted medical reasons for delay, found notice service defective, and set aside a non-speaking CIT(A) order for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
Tribunal ruled that disallowance for not filing Form 10 can only apply in the year of default, not later years of utilization. Addition of ₹80 lakh deleted.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
ITAT ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A.
Bombay High Court held that the benefit of concessional rate on High Speed Diesel [HSD] against Form ‘C’ is not entitled since the usage of HSD is beyond specified purpose i.e. used beyond direct mining operations. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
The appellate authority held that additions cannot be sustained solely on external information without independent verification. Bogus purchase claims under Section 69A were deleted.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that licensing requirement under Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 read with rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Rules, 2017 applies to both manufacturer and dealers. Further, the licensing requirement doesn’t violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
ITAT Chennai ruled that an assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number violates CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and is invalid. Tribunal held that non-compliance with circular’s mandate cannot be cured by later communication of DIN. Orders lacking DIN are deemed never to have been issued.
