ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed source of income cannot be sustained merely because this amount is not reported in Tax Audit Report since transaction is duly recorded in books of accounts.
Delhi High Court held that retention of seized property without adhering to section 20 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] is contrary to statutory framework and accordingly unsustainable in law. Hence, present appeal is allowed and order set aside.
Delhi High Court held that in terms of section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when issues of determining taxability or valuation are involved, the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.
Delhi High Court held that under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and Faceless Assessing Officer possess concurrent jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices, reaffirming its earlier ruling in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Reiterating its view from K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi HC held that both Jurisdictional and Faceless Assessing Officers have concurrent powers to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Neena Wadhwa v. PCIT upholds the concurrent power of both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) to issue reassessment notices under Section 148, citing the binding precedent of T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd..
Madras High Court held that freight charges are directly related to the delivery of goods and therefore form an inseparable part of the sale consideration. Thus, freight charges form part of the sale price and are taxable under the Sales Tax Act.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition on account of unaccounted sales based on estimated production yield in complete absence of any adverse material is rightly deleted. Accordingly, substantial question is answered in favour of assessee.
ITAT Chennai held that revisionary powers exceeded by PCIT since rectification order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, order of PCIT u/s. 263 quashed.
NCLAT Delhi held that order of Adjudicating Authority refusing approval of resolution plan justified since deed claimed by Corporate Debtor is doubtful and questionable and accordingly, asset cannot be treated as asset of Corporate Debtor.
