Delhi High Court held that mere delay in the pronouncement of a judgment, by itself, is not sufficient to invalidate the decision of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT]. Accordingly, judgement of DRAT upheld and petition dismissed.
ITAT Indore held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained deposit is unsustainable in law since the nature and source of the deposit is sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition u/s. 69A is deleted.
Restoring the Assessing Officer’s findings, the Tribunal ruled that excessive salary to related directors can be disallowed when it substitutes dividend distribution. Reasonableness must be judged against comparable market remuneration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax demand order set aside since show cause notice [SCN] and adjudication order not duly served upon the appellant. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The issue was whether 100% of alleged bogus purchases could be disallowed despite accepted production and sales. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and adopted a plausible view. Mere disagreement by the Commissioner does not render the assessment order erroneous.
The Tribunal examined whether cost of improvement can be denied solely due to cash payments. It ruled that genuine documentary evidence is sufficient, reducing the section 50C addition substantially.
The issue was whether entire cash deposits and unsecured loans could be taxed as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that only the embedded profit is taxable and restricted the addition to 10%.
The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank must deduct TDS on interest beyond the threshold despite payment to co-operative societies. Specific TDS provisions were held to override general exemptions.
The issue was whether Section 50 can apply when no depreciation was ever claimed or allowed on cars. The Tribunal held that without actual depreciation, Section 50 cannot be invoked and the addition was deleted.
