ITAT Kolkata held that making the addition for under valuation of closing stock for not adding making charges specifically for the year under appeal cannot be held to be justified unless and until corresponding adjustment is made for the opening stock. Accordingly, addition deleted.
CESTAT held that Commissioner (Appeals) had overstepped his bounds by reviewing a Tribunal’s order that had already gained finality due to lack of appeal. Department’s selective application of review processes was criticized as a mockery of judicial process.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, de novo adjudication ordered as CIT(A) didn’t rendered any finding on merits.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court have upheld the Judgment of ITAT wherein it was observed that the tax residency certificate is sufficient to determine the proof of residency and the income-tax authorities cannot ignore the valid tax residency certificate issued by the Government authority of the other contracting state, that is, Singapore.
ITAT Pune held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act based on new agricultural land bought in the name of the son and daughter-in-law and not in the name of the assessee is not allowable.
Bombay High Court held re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for mere change of opinion is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Calcutta High Court held that considering the provisions, order passed u/s 148A(d) is within three years and accordingly, Principal CIT (PCIT) and not the Principal Chief CIT (PCCIT) is ‘Specified Authority’ for approval of the same. Thus, AO rightly took approval from Principal CIT.
The Madras High Court recently dismissed Writ Petitions filed by Ambika Timber Depot, Sree Ashapura Saw Mill & Sree Laxmi Narayana Timbers Private Ltd seeking a legal opportunity for virtual cross-examination in a Personal Hearing due to non-appearance of transporters.
ITAT Nagpur held that the assessee is undoubtedly entitled to hold two different portfolios in respect of the same kind of asset i.e. stock in trade and investment. Since, the land was held as investment the same is assessable to tax under the head ‘capital gain’.
ITAT Chennai held that CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) based on the fresh evidences furnished by the assessee. However, CIT(A) failed to afford an opportunity to AO to verify the fresh evidence which is in violation of Rule 46A and hence order remanded back to AO to verify the evidences.
