Tribunal held that once a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) allows a claim, any earlier disallowance by CPC under Section 143(1) merges into it and loses force.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has deleted a ₹55 lakh addition made under the “accommodation entry” theory, ruling that the repayment of loans through banking channels negated any benefit to the assessee, thereby making the addition and the reassessment legally unsustainable.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur condoned a 729-day delay in Rupa Abhay Vyas’s appeal, citing the death of her legal counsel during the COVID-19 pandemic and her subsequent medical diagnosis.
Understand the difference between Previous Year and Assessment Year in Indian tax law, including the standard rule and key exceptions to tax assessment.
he Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) in Delhi rejected Niterra India Pvt. Ltd.’s application for a ruling on the classification of NOx sensors. The rejection was based on Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the issue had already been decided by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a separate case.
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Delhi, has rejected an application by Great Nuts Impex Private Limited regarding the classification of ‘Roasted Supari.’ The decision, based on Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, holds that a ruling cannot be issued on a matter already decided by a High Court, even if the applicant wasn’t a party to the prior case.
Tribunal held that technical issues in filing Form 56F cannot bar deduction under Section 10AA. Meghmani LLP’s Rs. 4.82 crore claim allowed as form submission was directory, not mandatory.
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings has rejected an application for a ruling on Scented Supari classification, citing an existing High Court judgment on the matter.
In a case concerning a real estate transaction, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, held that an assessment under Section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material was found from the assessee.
The ITAT in Hyderabad has remanded the case of Capital Fortunes to the AO, ruling that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on a technicality. The tribunal held that genuine claims, such as set-off of losses and dividend exemption, must be decided on their merits.
