Assessee, an individual, had deposited cash in his bank account. During assessment, AO observed that assessee had entered into share transactions and earned income from commodities through Multi Commodity Exchange.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that non application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the A.O. will make the order erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, as order passed without adequate inquiry, revision u/s. 263 justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order has been framed in the name of a non-existing assessee.
Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL filed by a self-styled criminology firm observing that no mandamus can be issued merely for enforcing a particular thought of an individual or an organization, if it is not supported by any legal premise.
Allahabad HC quashes orders penalizing Raghuveer Ispat Pvt Ltd under UP GST Act for expired e-way bill, directing refund of deposited tax and penalty.
ITAT Pune nullifies AO’s Rs.3.36 lakh addition for cash purchases, citing lack of evidence and failure to provide requested information.
As a Quasi-Judicial authority, if assessee had fulfilled all the requirements that are provided under the relevant section 54 of the Act and the circular, that by itself was sufficient compliance before passing the order of refund of the tax.
Bombay High Court held that show cause notice based on allegation that scheme approved by the Court is in contravention of provisions of the Finance Act quashed as order sanctioning the scheme has not been challenged by any authority and has attained finality.
ITAT Mumbai condones delay in Jayesh Hirji Savla’s case, following Supreme Court principles on substantial justice, and remands the matter for reassessment.
Delhi High Court held that the Entertainment Tax Act does not contain a mechanism for assessing and collecting tax on sponsorships. The imposition of a tax on sponsorship under the Entertainment Tax Act must fail in the absence of a specific charging provision.
