ITAT Pune held that addition by invoking provisions of section 43CA of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since the difference between the Stamp Duty Value and agreement value is less than the allowable limit of 5%.
Madras High Court directs customs department to reconsider suspension order suspending license of Container Freight Station [CFS] due to unblemished track record of the petitioner. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
The responsibility for recovering unpaid tax lies properly and primarily with the tax authorities, who must proceed against the defaulting seller, rather than against the innocent purchasing dealer who has fulfilled all obligations imposed by the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that only the estimation profit element has to form subject matter of addition in case of bogus accommodation entries. Accordingly, CIT(A) order directing @2.5% on total bogus accommodation entry upheld.
The Patna High Court ruled that the two-year limitation period for claiming a tax refund, particularly for payments made under the wrong head, starts from the date of tax payment under the correct head, aligning with Section 77 and relevant circulars.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand of anti-dumping duty in terms of notification no. 15/2014-CUS(ABD) cannot be sustained since no evidences established that the goods were either manufactured or supplied from China or were routed through Taiwan after being supplied from China.
ITAT Bangalore confirms penalty deletion under Section 271(1)(c) against Manipal Hospitals, ruling that a mere disallowance of a claim, like interest expenditure reclassification, does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Bangalore allows appeal of Mysore Brindavan Sky Trust, ordering fresh consideration of its 12AB registration after CIT(E) incorrectly concluded no activities by the trust.
ITAT Bangalore rules that Section 14A/Rule 8D disallowances cannot be made mechanically without the AO recording proper satisfaction regarding the assessee’s claim of expenditure.
ITAT Cuttack held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained since issue already considered during original assessment by AO and hence reopening amounts to change of opinion. Accordingly, order quashed.
