ITAT Bangalore partially allowed Shobha Sundar Babu’s appeal, admitting new loan documents obtained via Karnataka High Court order and remanding the Rs. 53,09,817/− deduction claim under Section 24(b) to the AO for fresh verification.
The Bombay High Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order retrospectively canceling Dipak Metal Industries’ GST registration, ruling a gross violation of natural justice for serving notice to an outdated address.
The Bombay High Court ordered the restoration of a firm’s cancelled GST registration after it paid all outstanding dues, interest, and late fees, accepting the delay was bona fide. The court imposed an additional ₹50,000 cost payable to a hospital under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
CESTAT remands Rane Holdings’ SAP software import case for fresh adjudication, citing doubts over the appellant’s status as the liable importer, value payment, and differing software types.
Ahmedabad ITAT rules in Naman Vidyapati Patel Vs PCIT that the cancellation of a land deal and refund of received amounts, even post-search, negated the claim of unaccounted income, quashing the PCIT’s revision order under Section 263.
Delhi High Court quashes Section 148A(3) order against Huawei, directing the AO to pass a fresh, reasoned order on the non-resident’s interest income and Section 194LC compliance.
Description: The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the core dispute of 2.46 crore bogus purchase disallowance, despite detailed submissions, due to a clerical error in the grounds of appeal. The ITAT ruled that this failure violated natural justice, set aside the appellate order, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh, proper verification and adjudication.
ITAT directs the Assessing Officer to freshly adjudicate the tax case of Meenaz Anjum Dayatar to allow her to claim cost of acquisition and indexation against the sale of a crore property, which was incorrectly taxed as unexplained income under Section 68.
Summary of the CESTAT Chennai judgment on customs classification dispute. The court emphasized that classification requires best evidence, like a test report or contract details, not mere reliance on general public domain catalogues, especially when the crucial distinguishing feature (sheathing) is in dispute.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order in Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT(OSD), restoring the addition dispute of ₹10,00,100 under Section 69A for fresh review.
