I-T - additions framed u/s 68 in respect of investments made by assessees in a penny stock, merit being sustained where assessee is unable to furnish any reasonable explanation for sudden & steep rise in share prices in the midst of recession: HC

2022-TIOL-855-HC-KOL-IT

Pr.CIT Vs Swati Bajaj

Whether additions framed u/s 68 in respect of investments made by assessees in a penny stock, merit being sustained where the assessees are unable to furnish any reasonable explanation for a sudden and steep rise in share prices in the midst of a recessive market - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeals allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-612-ITAT-DEL

Efacec Switchgear India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether addition of spare parts & tools which are not independent of plant & machinery, but are parts of machinery, can be treated as installation of plant and machinery so as to claim additional depreciation - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-611-ITAT-BANG

Embassy Inn Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether pre-operative expenditure cannot be allowed as business expenditure, if company has not at all completed set up of business so as to commercially starts its operation - YES: ITAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE ITAT

2022-TIOL-610-ITAT-AHM

Dharmin N Thakkar Vs ITO

Whether AO can be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction, if he treats closing cash in hand as income from undisclosed sources which was not mandated under 'limited scrutiny' notice issued u/s 143(2) - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

Cus - Non-supply of documents has vitally affected right of detnus under Art 22(5) of Constitution, detention order is bad for same reasons: HC

GST - The Department is directed to grant refund of IGST already paid by applicants pursuant to Entry No. 10 of Notfn 10/2017-IGST (Rate) along with statutory rate of interest: HC

2022-TIOL-857-HC-AHM-GST

Adi Enterprises Vs UoI

GST - The petitioners have prayed to direct the respondents to grant refund of amount of IGST already paid by applicants pursuant to Entry No. 10 of Notfn 10/2017-IGST (Rate) with appropriate interest on such refund - Petitioner would submit that the reason for filing application is that vires of Entry No. 10 of said Notfn issued under IGST Act, 2017 was challenged by applicant by way of writ petition along with other identical writ petitions - The Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions and declared Entry No. 10 of said Notfn as ultra vires the Act - This application requires consideration and hence, the same is allowed - The respondents are directed to grant refund of the amount of IGST already paid by applicants pursuant to Entry No. 10 of Notfn 10/2017-IGST (Rate) along with statutory rate of interest on such refund within a period of four weeks: HC

- Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-856-HC-KERALA-CUS

Nushath Koyamu Vs UoI

Cus - Detention - After interception of all three detenues, statements of Muhammed Ali, Biju V.Joy and S.S. Abdulla were recorded under S. 108 of Customs Act - Muhammed Ali in his statement admitted that on clearing the goods sent through other persons, they were taken to his residence and after retrieving gold, household articles and the gold were sold - The proceeds were sent to Dubai for reinvesting in gold smuggling - There has been reliance made in detention order regarding documents mentioned which might have forced detaining authority to reach the conclusion about previous smuggling activities and which necessitated the present order of detention - Inspite of a specific request, copies were not given - There has been infraction of right of detenus to make an effective representation seeking release - Detention order is bad for non-supply of these documents sought for - The requirement under Section 8 of COFEPOSA Act in the background of Constitutional provision is for a reference to an Advisory Board duly constituted and it is not the petitioner's case and the board which answered the reference in instant case had any member who was not qualified or competent to hear the reference - Question of detenus being put to any prejudice much less any actual prejudice does not normally arise - The interest of detenus were sufficiently taken care of both in the constitution of Board and while answering the reference - The Court found no error, much less, any illegality in constitution of Board or while it answered the reference and contention on that count made on behalf of the detenu is accordingly rejected: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT