Bombay High Court held that the deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act relating to allowance of the bad debts.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed income merely on the basis of conjectures cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Further, also held that addition purely based on post-dated cheques cannot be sustained.
Since there was no infirmity on the behalf of the investigation agencies in invoking confiscation under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of seven gold bars bearing foreign markings out of the ten bars seized.
NCLT Hyderabad held that partnership firm are not included under the definition of personal guarantor covered under section 5(22) of the IBC, 2016. Accordingly, insolvency proceedings u/s. 95 of IBC against partnership firm cannot be initiated.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on mere change of opinion is not permissible in law. Accordingly, petition allowed and reassessment notice quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen proceedings without anything further. Thus, reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act set aside.
Madras High Court held that ex-parte orders issued in the name of deceased person and initiation of recovery proceedings against the deceased person is against the principles of natural justice and hence is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that the issuance of notice u/s. 148 based on cryptic reasons combined with a mechanical approval of the Pr.CIT u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act do not pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Thus, reassessment quashed.
AO after providing due opportunity to the assessee, made addition of INR 3,74,08,810/- on the basis that the assessee could not explain and produce books of accounts alongwith supporting evidences.
Madras High Court held that allegation of suppression of sale based on consumption of power not sustained since EB units consumed are not directly linked with sales and reasons for difference in turnover duly explained.
