Explore the ITAT Chennai ruling in the V.K. Sasikala vs DCIT case, where the importance of tangible new material in reassessment proceedings has been underscored. Learn how the tribunal’s decision impacts the treatment of reassessment cases in Indian Tax Law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim under section 11B filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is not maintainable. Here, relevant date was date on which appellant has voluntarily paid the short payment of service tax.
ITAT Delhi held that huge amount as interest free advances given to company which is neither relative/ partner nor connected with Assessee based on MOU which is neither on stamp paper nor stamped or registered creates a reasonable doubt. Matter remanded for further inquiry.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unsecured loan under section 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to discharge the primary onus and burden of proof of providing genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of creditors to the satisfaction of the A.O.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act towards share application money unsustainable since they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, IBC has been found to give higher priority to dues owed to secured creditors than to electricity dues. This analysis examines the court’s interpretation of IBC and its implications for creditors and power sector.
Key takeaways from the Pawanveer Singh vs ITO case: ITAT Delhi calls for fresh adjudication concerning the income tax on a settlement sum received from a mother-in-law.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that suspension of Customs Broker Licence is against the principles of natural justice as Managing Director being in the judicial custody couldn’t have any opportunity to submit his explanation.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that there is no requirement of the actual use of inputs and quantities of imported goods for claiming DFIA i.e. Duty-Free Import Authorization benefit.
The ITAT Delhi nullifies the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on Meena Singhal, as the notice issued did not specify the particular charge.
