CESTAT Delhi held that statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as evidence under section 138B of the Customs Act. Accordingly, demand based on the statement recorded cannot be sustained. Thus, order set aside and appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes arbitrary disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b), emphasizing AO’s burden to prove excessiveness in related party transactions.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reassessment notices for Rising Star Investment for AY 2017-18, citing jurisdictional defects and lack of proper sanction. Also deletes Section 56(2)(viia) addition based on DVO report.
ITAT Mumbai held that all the conditions of slump sale as provided under section 2(42C) of the Income Tax Act read with section 50B of the Act is satisfied. Accordingly, benefit of section 50B granted and AO directed to compute the business income accordingly.
Madras High Court held that in terms of section 129(2)(c) of Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDRS], department empowered to withdrawn the benefit as in case of ‘voluntary disclosure’ the material particular furnished in the Declaration is subsequently found to be false.
Allahabad High Court quashed a Section 74 SCN derived from a Section 73 SCN, ruling it lacked jurisdiction without specific allegations of fraud or misstatement.
The Rajasthan High Court expunged observations made by the AAAR regarding Input Tax Credit, as the issue was outside the original AAR application.
Delhi High Court held that concluded assessments cannot be reopened merely based on suspicion. Accordingly, reassessment quashed as there is no tangible material to form ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment.
ITAT Jaipur allowed exemption under Section 54F in Goverdhan Singh Shekhawat Vs ITO despite technical non-compliance, emphasizing substance over form and judicial precedents.
ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of assessee, deleting a Rs 10.53 lakh cash deposit addition, citing Section 68 non-applicability to bank accounts.
