Madras High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on case of the person from whom gold was seized without independently considering the case of the petitioner is not justifiable. Accordingly, court directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner.
ITAT Pune held that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained interest income is already reflected in the return of the deductee and tax is already paid on the same. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted bail to the petitioner caught in alleged illicit drug on the ground of medical condition of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ allowed and bail granted.
The balance tax demand was also paid. Later, the Revisional Authority issued a notice under Section 64, claiming the appellate order was prejudicial to revenue. Assessee objected, stating that once benefits under the Scheme were granted, revision was not permissible.
Orissa High Court held that writ against blocking of Input Tax Credit [ITC] under rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] not entertained as reply of the petitioner is pending adjudication. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that fine imposed for non-furnishing of financial documents on directors of the company is justifiable, however, compounding fine amount reduced from Rs. 1.50 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakhs due to severe financial difficulty faced by the directors.
Assessee-trust registered under Sections 12A and 80G had filed its return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 declaring nil income. The return was processed under Section 143(1), and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS.
Depreciation claim under Section 32 was allowable on actual cost of assets which the assessee paid to the erstwhile partners for taking over from a dissolved firm. It did not matter if the partners were from the same family, as the Act did not make any such distinction.
Assessee claimed deduction under section 54F on the basis that the long-term capital gain earned from the transfer of tenancy/possessory rights was invested for the purchase of a residential flat.
Madras High Court directed petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax amount and granted time to furnish reply to the GST show cause notice. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
