ITAT Delhi held that unless there was specific material collected to rebut the submissions of assessee then merely on basis of inference from the circumstances, the purchase could not have been held to be bogus.
Bombay High Court held that only reason for re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is adoption of different opinion on the question of valuation as against the one adopted by petitioner. Accordingly, such re-assessment proceedings is liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that AO is free to examine the method through which the share price is determined. However, AO doesnot have power to change the method from discounted cash flow (DCF) as followed by assessee to Net Asset Value (NAV).
ITAT Pune held that once a revised return is filed within the time permitted u/s.139(5), it substitutes the original return in all respects. Accordingly, claim of enhanced amount of carry forward of loss vide revised return is allowable.
ITAT Mumbai held that no additions or disallowances can be made u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act in absence of any incriminating material found during the search on a third person.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of refund application on allegation of fake credit availed by the supplier is unsustainable in absence of any establishment of non-supply of goods from the said supplier.
CESTAT Chennai held that as per explanation to section 65(105)(zzzh) was added on 01/07/2010, builder/ developer/ promoter getting residential complex constructed for his customer and entering into individual agreements will be treated as deemed provider of construction of residential complex service. Accordingly, no liability of service tax will arise prior to 01/07/2010.
Delhi High Court held that whether condition 104 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 is complied or not is required to be considered by the Customs Authorities and Customs Authorities are not bounded by the decision of DGCA.
Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed acceptance of personal bond instead of bank guarantee, as condition for stay of assessment order, pending disposal of appeal in VAT demand matter.
Bombay High Court held that being in retail business of electronic appliances, cash deposits from various places cannot be doubted be considered suspicious transactions. Accordingly, cash deposits in crores cannot lead to a belief that the income has escaped assessment. Re-opening unjustified.
