Supreme Court held that under Section 138 of the NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a Cheque. Thus, multiple cheques arise from one transaction will give arise to separate prosecution u/s. 138 of NI Act.
Although the assessee quoted the wrong provision in the appeal form, the challenge was clearly against a scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal ruled that procedural lapses cannot defeat a valid statutory appeal.
The Tribunal found that estimating agricultural income solely on standard yield figures ignores real-world farming variables. The assessment was partly modified by limiting the addition to ₹50,000.
The Tribunal examined whether provision for salary arrears arising from the Sixth Pay Commission was contingent or accrued. It held that the liability had accrued for services rendered and was allowable as an ascertained liability.
The Tribunal ruled that VAT collected but not credited to the profit and loss account cannot be treated as taxable income. Once substantially paid to the government, such liability cannot be added again as trading receipts.
The issue was whether reassessment remains valid when no Section 143(2) notice is issued after a return is filed in response to Section 148. ITAT held such reassessment void, confirming that Section 143(2) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The Tribunal held that when the Assessing Officer disagrees with FMV supported by a registered valuer, a reference to the DVO is mandatory. Reliance solely on stamp duty rates was found improper, and the matter was remanded for fresh valuation.
ITAT Pune held that subsidy received from Maharashtra Government under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal dismissed.ITAT Pune held that subsidy received from Maharashtra Government under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal dismissed.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation was fully explainable from business receipts. ITAT held that explanations were partly unreliable and sustained 50% of the addition under Section 68.
ITAT Chennai held that recharacterization of business from ‘software development service provider’ to ‘contract R&D service provider’ not justifiable as BAPA and TPO’s earlier assessment accepted characterisation of the Assessee to be a Software Development service provider. Hence, upward transfer pricing adjustment deleted.
