The High Court observed that the impugned order was passed without considering the reply and on the ground that no reply was filed, the impugned order was set aside and the proceedings were restored to the stage of show cause notice.

Great Sands Consulting (P) Ltd. v. UOI & Ors.

  CGST Act, 2017   GST
Section 79 was not applicable on loss brought forward on account of depreciation, accordingly, AO was directed to allow set-off after due verification based on material facts.

Dy. CIT v. P.N. Memorial Neuro Centre & Research Ltd.

  Section 79   Direct Taxes
CIT(A) failed to notice that appeal was filed originally within prescribed period of 30 days from the receipt of order of AO and wrongly took the date of deposit of self-assessment tax as date of filing of appeal whereas date of self-assessment tax payment had to be treated as the date of removal of defect in the appeal as originally filed and once defect of remittance of self-assessment tax stood removed, CIT(A) was required to adjudicate the appeal on merits

Valley Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

  Section 246A   Direct Taxes
The petitioner was the owner of the vehicle but he failed to prove that he had no knowledge about the goods carried in the vehicle so as to discharge his burden as otherwise envisaged under the Act of 2017. In absence of discharge of burden by the owner of the vehicle, an order for release of vehicle could not be passed.

Vajid v. State of U.P.

  UPGST Act, 2017   GST
Assessee’s case was not falling under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 159, and in such circumstances, the proceedings pursuant to the notice under section 148 issued to a dead person cannot be continued against the legal representatives, further, section 292B could not be resorted to.

Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja v. ITO

  Section 147   Direct Taxes
Where assessee was not required to maintain any books of account and there was no mechanism to report the investment in the tax return, the said investment could not be held as undisclosed investment and more so, undisclosed income so defined in section 271AAB, therefore, investment so found in purchase of Villa could not be termed as undisclosed income within the meaning of “undisclosed income” and penalty levied thereon was liable to be set aside.

Gauri Shankar Kandoi v. Dy. CIT

  Section 271AAB   Direct Taxes
Since lower authority had failed to consider the provision of section 176(3A) which deals with the income from discontinued business, therefore, interest income received by assessee was to be assessed as income from business and profession, considering the provisions of section 176(3A).

Anand People Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. DCIT

  Section 14   Direct Taxes
As decided in case of Edel Commodities Limited v. DCIT [[ITA No. 3426/Mum/2016] for AY 2011-12 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1834 (Mum-Trib)], even though the loss had not finally crystallized if as per prudent and regular system of accounting, loss had to be accounted for then the same should be allowed under section 37(1).

Dy. CIT v. Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd.

  Section 37(1)   Direct Taxes
Since assessee did not produce any sufficient documentary evidences before authorities to claim huge agricultural income earned out of small agricultural land holdings and it was concocted and fabricated by assessee, therefore, AO was justified in considering the same as income from other sources.

Parvinder Singh v. ITO

  Section 57(iii)   Direct Taxes
After examining the screenshots that were enclosed with the application, we observe that the MRP of Rs. 1099 shown on the screenshot, pertained to the stock of the goods carrying an MRP of Rs. 1099, which was lying with the Respondent and that the Respondent has himself stated that once the old stock was liquidated, the MRP of Rs. 1520 was updated on the website. But since the new stock carrying the MPR of Rs. 1520 had already circulated in the market, the website of the Respondent showed MRP of Rs. 1099 till July, 2018.

Rahul Sharma v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

  Rule 129 of CGST Rules, 2017   Direct Taxes
1 2