AO pointed out that the 118% gain from a single scrip in 15-16 months had no commercial justification, and Karma ISP was identified as a penny stock used to create fake exempt gains.
Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction not entertained as the case involved fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit under GST. Accordingly, petition dismissed and petitioner permitted to file an appeal before appellate authority.
Madras High Court held that withdrawal of appeal under GST by inadvertently mentioning wrong assessment year by the auditor is restored back since the reason provided is found genuine. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed tax authorities to reconsider the pre-deposit conditions for an assessee’s appeal, reducing the monthly payment from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 1 lakh.
Assessee was entitled to refund of ₹7.98 crore as once a protest was lodged, it was upon the customs authorities to dispose of it by a speaking, appealable order, failing which, the protest could not be deemed to have lapsed.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that a company’s loans were not unexplained cash credits, deleting a tax addition after finding transactions were squared up through banking channels.
The ITAT Cochin has ruled against Muthoot Fincorp, confirming the disallowance of expenses due to non-deduction of TDS on a composite contract.
The ITAT Ahmedabad bench, in the case of DCIT vs. Phoenix Flexibles Private Limited held that a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot simply set aside a reassessment order and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer without first deciding on the jurisdictional and legal challenges raised by the taxpayer such as the validity of the notice and sanction for reopening.
Delhi High Court held that any award passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by an interested party is vitiated. Accordingly, ex-parte arbitral award passed is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Kolkata held that only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year should be considered for computing disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the IT Rules. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
