This court is required to draw a balance between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and also the right of the prosecution to duly prosecute the petitioner so as to prevent him from evading the trial.
Kerala High Court held that section 245C doesn’t prescribed any prior cut-off date for filing settlement application. Unadjudicated notice u/s. 153A/ 153C as on the date of application is the only requirement.
Telangana High Court held that granting registration under section 12A retrospectively is not permissible as cogent reasons not provided for belated filing of application for registration under section 12A. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of statement which was subsequently retracted is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted.
Calcutta High Court directs refund of IGST paid by Sanjay Kumar Lohia, ruling a challan’s incorrect tax period entry should not deny a legitimate refund claim.
ITAT Mumbai under Resale Price Method [RPM] focus is more on same or similar nature of products rather than similarity of products. Thus, TPO directed to include 5 companies as comparable for benchmarking international transaction.
Madras High Court held that the scope of review being very limited, the review application is dismissed as there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. Writ petition disposed of, accordingly.
Madras High Court rules in favor of Enfinity Solar, quashing an assessment order due to the tax authorities’ failure to issue a mandatory draft assessment order after remand.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited during demonetization cannot be sustained as source of cash deposited is cash sales and the same is already offered to tax. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition is deleted.
The central question before the High Court was: Can the department’s inaction on a pre-show cause notice under Section 74 effectively frustrate a taxpayer’s statutory right to opt for settlement under Section 128A, especially when such settlement is contingent upon the issuance of a formal notice under Section 73(1)?
