Reassessment order was quashed on cash deposits as AO did not possess any credible information to form a belief that income had escaped assessment and there was non-application of mind for reopening the matter.
In the instant case, the classification of imported materials used in the manufacture of brake pads arose for consideration was whether these materials should be classified under CTH 3824 as declared by assessee or under CTH 6813 as argued by Revenue.
Addition of cash deposit under section 68 was not justified as the same could only be invoked if the taxpayer maintained books of accounts and assessee filed an income tax return under Section 44AD which did not require books of accounts.
Penalty under section 270 A was not leviable as the nature of addition/disallowance were not in the nature of misreporting or misreporting income of assessee and assessee had paid the demand within 30 days and filed the required form no. 68 and that form was procedural in nature.
NCLAT New Delhi held that proposing NIL amount doesn’t result into non-compliance of section 30(2)(b) of IBC. Hence, approval of resolution plan proposing NIL amount to Operational Creditor justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that adoption of value of land as determined by the Stamp Duty Authority without referring the valuation to Valuation Officer u/s. 50C of the Income Tax Act unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored for de novo adjudication.
Assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. However, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the benefit of Section 80-I upon the conversion of a proprietorship concern or the partnership firm to a Private Limited Company, is answered in favour of the assessee.
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter involving applicability of service tax on supply of manpower involved in garbage collection as well as auto tipper vis-à-vis its coverage in mega exemption notification 12/2012 as amended by 25/2012.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that there is no basis for linking assessee’s alleged violation of RBI notification dated 8th November 2016 to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, when the nature and source is explained.
