ITAT Bangalore held that delay of more than 5 years in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) condoned as reason for delay found to be genuine. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) quashed and matter restored back to CIT(A).
ITAT Allahabad held that in the absence of any comparable cases, the past history of the assessee, which has been accepted in many assessments under section 143(3) of the Act, cannot be overlooked. Accordingly, directed to assess net profit @3.5% instead of 7%/5% of contractual receipts.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some parties didn’t respond to the notice of AO, entire expenditure cannot be held as non-genuine. Accordingly, deletion of addition by CIT(A) upheld.
Therefore, the amount distributed by it to the Petitioner would not qualify as exempt dividend income under Section 10(34) of the Act. This to our mind would be merely a “change of opinion”.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption u/s. 54F and 54B of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-adherence to strict time limits. Accordingly, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction in respect of investments made beyond the prescribed time period.
Supreme Court dismisses Union of India’s appeal, upholding Delhi High Court’s order for immediate GST refund. Reiterates need for recorded reasons under CGST Act Section 108.
CESTAT Delhi held that recovery of ineligible Focus Market Scrips under section 28AAA of the Customs Act cannot be sustained without cancellation of the instrument by DGFT. Accordingly, order held as without jurisdiction.
NCLAT upholds NCLT’s rejection of Indian Bank’s insolvency plea against a personal guarantor who was also the resolution applicant, citing the approval of a new guarantee under the corporate debtor’s resolution plan.
Madhya Pradesh High Court nullifies GST penalty due to denial of cross-examination, reinforcing natural justice principles for adjudication orders.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition on account of LTCG in the hands of firm not justified as property is belonged to the partner in his individual capacity and didn’t belonged to the firm. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
