The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition by Backbone Projects Limited, upholding the reopening of assessment based on fresh, credible information from investigating wings detailing the receipt of ₹1.25 crore in bogus accommodation entries. The court ruled that mere production of documents does not constitute a full and true disclosure when transactions are later found to be false.
The Madras High Court reserved petitioners’ right to claim a tax refund, agreeing to defer the decision until the Supreme Court rules on the SLP challenging the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Sal Steels Limited. The Revenue cited conflicting rulings from the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts as grounds for delay.
Revenue from film distribution was specifically excluded from the definition of “royalty” under both the Act and the India-USA DTAA and interest earned on income tax refund was not effectively connected with any permanent establishment in India and should be taxed at 15% as per Article 11(2) of the India-US DTAA.
Rajasthan High Court modifies bail condition with regard to foreign travel to petitioner involved in alleged tax evasion of Rs. 8.75 crores. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad with prior information taking note of no flight risk.
The Supreme Court found that the arbitrator rewrote contract terms contrary to a Railway Board policy circular and thus committed “patent illegality” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was quashed, and the High Court’s affirmance set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of stale information results into change of opinion and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and reopening is quashed.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that petition seeking release/reimbursement of GST cannot be entertained since relief of compensations sought is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period were from genuine business cash sales. The addition of Rs. 20.86 lakh by the AO and CIT(A) was based on assumptions and was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a genuine ₹50 lakh loan received and fully repaid with interest cannot be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68. The addition by AO and CIT(A) was deleted as the assessee provided full banking and repayment evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹1.06 crore addition under Section 41(1). The tribunal held that the unsecured loans were used for capital expenditure, not trading purposes, making the addition inapplicable.
