Gujarat High Court held that requisition of seized cash allowed under section 132A of the Income Tax Act and directed that the income tax department shall be free to undertake all actions permitted under the law and shall deposit the entire amount in the P.D. Account.
In the matter abovementioned Delhi HC dismissed appeal filed by revenue after observing that there is no allegation or finding that cash had been received back by the assessee in respect of the purchases reflected in its books of account.
Madras High Court held that benefit under Direct Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 [DTVSV Scheme] eligible since appeal filed against assessment order dated 26.12.2016 was revived/restored/alive.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act is not attracted to the licensee/assessee in respect of electricity duty. Thus, question is answered in favour of the assessee and hence appeal of revenue dismissed.
The assessee’s application, which was filed on 9-2-2017, was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and later by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that it was submitted beyond the six-month deadline stipulated under Section 102(3) of the Act.
Delhi High Court held that the Liquidated Damages clause does not entitle a party to claim the whole Liquidated Damages sum automatically upon the occurrence of breach. Liquidated Damages can be claimed subject to proving the actual loss suffered.
ITAT Chandigarh held that invocation of revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since PCIT failed to establish that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act is allowed towards different floors of a house considering it as single residential house. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that petitioner/ university is not liable to pay taxes on supply of food stuff and other items to students since ancillary activities of providing canteen facilities to the inmates of the University would not amount to business as defined by the Act.
Delhi High Court quashes tax demand order for non-consideration of reply and lack of hearing. Future orders contingent on Supreme Court’s decision on notification validity.
