ITAT Ahmedabad held that the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act made without proper examination of the books of account and relevant financial records unjustified. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored back.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that imposition of penalty on allegation of foreign origin gold set aside as department failed to examine the documents nor have given any specific findings on the defence of the assessee. Thus, order set aside and matter remanded back.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act on the right to collect toll on the roads developed on BOT basis is not eligible.
The Tribunal reiterated that the PCIT cannot expand the scope of assessment beyond the reasons recorded by the AO during the reassessment process. Thus, any claims regarding non-verification of the other issues raised by the PCIT could not justify overturning the AO’s assessment.
Supreme Court allows Anil Rice Mill to seek review of High Court judgment. Pending review, the judgment cannot be cited as a legal precedent.
Calcutta HC restores GST registration on condition of paying tax, interest, and penalties for non-filing of returns. The petitioner’s appeal was initially time-barred.
Kerala High Court held that the “interest income” on the short-term deposits of the funds infused by the Government are in the nature of “capital receipt” and not “revenue receipt” and hence the same are not taxable as ‘income from other sources’.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that it is settled law that for the fault of the counsel, the litigant should not be made to suffer. Thus, petition allowed with a suggestion to counsel for the applicant to invest one hour of community service while visiting Mercy Home.
Karnataka High Court grants another opportunity to C.T. Raghu to submit documents after his Tax Audit Report was rejected for unsigned schedules and annexures.
The Karnataka High Court, upholding the ITAT’s order, reiterated that discounts on the issuance of ESOPs are allowable deductions under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, in line with the decision in Biocon Ltd.
