ITAT Raipur held that vacating addition/ disallowances by CIT(A) based on additional documentary evidences filed before him without confronting AO is against the provisions of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus, matter restored back to AO.
ITAT Pune held that additional income surrendered during the course of survey is taxable at normal rates and not at special rates as per section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The aforementioned action by assessee implied that assessee had accepted the reassessment and enhancement. Consequently, the appropriate officer was not supposed to issue a speaking order in accordance with Section 17(5) of the Customs Act.
Madras High Court held that service of GST notice only through GST portal is not service of notice in compliance with Section 169 of TNGST. Hence, assessment order passed thereon is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that re-assessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and sent to unrelated e-mail address is regarded as never served to assessee and hence re-assessment order framed thereon is nonest and bad in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is permitted to set off unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 against short term capital gains. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the addition and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
On appeal. It was held that application for refund was rightly rejected, as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of six years from the end of the assessment year for which the application/claim was made.
Assessee had received Rs. 13.36 crores by cheque/RTGS out of total cash deposit of Rs.24.35 crores in bank account of M/s R. S. Traders during demonetization period. During the survey, several documents and evidences were collected and impounded.
ITAT Mumbai rules that having an object to apply income outside India is not a valid reason to deny Sec 12AB registration to a charitable trust.
ITAT Jaipur quashes tax addition and penalty against 82-year-old senior citizen, finding no fault in her investment claims and supporting her submitted evidence.
