The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the ₹4.17 Crore TDS penalty order was invalid as it was passed over two years after the expiry of the statutory limitation period (June 30, 2014). This ruling reinforces that the limitation clock starts when the AO initiates the penalty in the assessment order.
The Delhi ITAT quashed a ₹42.10 Crore addition made in a Section 153A assessment, confirming that additions cannot be made to completed assessments without incriminating material seized during the search. The ruling follows the binding Supreme Court precedent in Abhisar Buildwell.
Bombay High Court sets aside a CESTAT order due to a two-year delay between the decision date and pronouncement date. The ruling relies on principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court precedent in Whirlpool Corporation to allow the writ petition.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding CIT(A)’s deletion of addition from a share sale, ruling the transaction genuine as no evidence proved the shares were ‘penny stock’ or rigged.
The Delhi High Court set aside the Rs. 450 Crore anti-profiteering order against Tata Play Ltd., upholding the constitutional validity of Section 171 but remanding the factual dispute to GSTAT for fresh determination.
NCLAT Delhi ruled that ESI contributions held by a Corporate Debtor are assets in trust of IBC, setting aside the NCLT’s order and excluding the amount from the liquidation estate.
In a case involving unexplained cash deposits, ITAT Agra restored appeal to AO, emphasizing need to examine documentary evidence of sale proceeds from agricultural land before confirming additions.
The Delhi High Court quashed two identical GST assessment orders for the same period due to procedural errors, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication and taxpayer hearing.
DRAT Chennai transferred the Mahan Textiles case from DRT Coimbatore to DRT-III Chennai, citing the Presiding Officer’s previous professional association with the petitioners.
The Gujarat High Court has granted leave to appeal a trial court’s acquittal in a ₹6 lakh cheque bounce case, citing a prima facie failure to properly appreciate evidence presented by the complainant.
