ITAT Mumbai held that the Revenue has failed to prove with any cogent evidence on record that the assessee was involved in converting his unaccounted money into long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains by conniving with any entry operator/exit provider. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 merely on the basis of suspicion unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata rules compensation received by Buyer on cancellation of Agreement to Sell immovable property not subject to Service Tax under Section 66E(e). Observes compensation for non-fulfillment by Seller doesn’t fall under ‘Declared Service’.
During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO made an estimated addition to the household drawings as the assessee did not provide a plausible reply to justify the expenses considering their family’s constitution and standard of living.
Analyzing the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to grant bail to Amrinder Singh in a tax evasion case, considering that the co-accused had already been granted bail.
ITAT Delhi held that TDS not deductible u/s 195(1) on the reimbursement of mobilization and demobilization cost to the holding company. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Pr.CIT’s view that entire cash deposits during demonetization is to be treated as unexplained, is contrary to the facts on record, as assessee has demonstrated the factum of huge turnover prior to and post demonetization. Accordingly, Pr.CIT’s finding of error in AO’s order is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and accordingly revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s 68 towards unsecured loan received by assessee treating the same as bogus based on mere presumptions and suspect is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that when there is no other price available at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory to depot on stock transfer basis, the only way available is to determine the assessable value based on the best judgment method.
ITAT Mumbai held that as service tax doesn’t partake the character of income, the same cannot be included in the gross receipt of the assessee for the purpose of computing the presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act.
The case of M. Pandidurai Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in CESTAT Chennai sheds light on the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in tax proceedings, setting a significant legal precedent.
