ITAT Delhi remands case to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to lack of physical notice before ex-parte decision on unexplained investment.
However, the completed/unabated assessments could be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 and those powers were saved.
Supreme Court held that High Court was bereft of the power to quash a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, using the powers inherent to it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as long as there was no consent from the complainant.
ITAT Delhi held that cost to cost reimbursement on account of secondment of employees cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under Article 12 of India USA-DTAA. Thus, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed exempt income. Thus, disallowance u/s. 14A restricted to the extent of exempt income.
NCLAT Delhi held that corporate debtor failed to demonstrate a pre-existing dispute at the time of filing an application u/s. 9 of IBC. Accordingly, concluded that application u/s. 9 of IBC duly admitted and CIRP rightly initiated.
ITAT Ranchi held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution without deciding the matter on merits is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remanded back for de novo adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on account of interest income earned on fixed deposits from Banks and rental income earned by the Society are eligible to set off of maintenance expenses. Thus, addition deleted.
Rajasthan High Court held that since reassessment order is distinct and different, the period of limitation for exercising powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act would be the date of original assessment order. Thus, entire proceedings barred by limitation.
ITAT Nagpur held that once the computation of income is approved by the assessee before CIT(A) the same cannot be argued against the Tribunal. Accordingly, computation of income directed by CIT(A) upheld.
