ITAT Jaipur held that being a debatable issue there was a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on specified transactions and accordingly penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Delhi held that NAV method adopted by the assessee is one of the recognized methods provided in rule 11UA of the Rules. Accordingly, the addition made u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, is hereby directed to be deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that as professional and consultation charges & purchase of fixed assets are capitalized in the books of accounts, it should not be considered for computation of proportionate TP adjustment.
ITAT Pune held that the conclusion arrived by AO on his satisfaction of details furnished by the assessee, cannot be found to be erroneous simply because Pr. CIT does not feel satisfied with the said conclusion. Accordingly, invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 unjustified.
Supreme Court held that as appellant company and accused are two separate entities and appellant company is not connected to the alleged crime, the freeze order against the appellant company’s property is not legally tenable.
ITAT Bangalore held that employees contribution has to be deposited within the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) sustained because of non-deposit within relevant due date.
ITAT Chennai held that written off of irrecoverable advances given to company partakes the nature of business loss which can be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, delete additions made towards disallowance of written off of advances.
ITAT Pune held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 sustained as AO failed to apply proper and correct section of Income Tax Act to the investment in the undisclosed stock.
ITAT Delhi declined to condone the inordinate delay of 1005 days in filing of appeal in absence of sufficient cause for delay in filing of the same.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that allegation of violation of regulation 10(b), 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 (CBLR) proved against the appellant. Accordingly, customs broker license duly revocable.
