The Tribunal held that even extraordinary circumstances like COVID-19 do not justify appeals filed after limitation expiry. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed due to failure to provide cogent reasons or affidavits supporting the delay.
ITAT Pune ruled that income from temporarily letting sugar factory assets is business income, not Income from Other Sources, allowing set-off of brought-forward losses.
An ex-parte GST order was quashed as the SCN and reminders were not effectively communicated to the petitioner. The Delhi High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, requiring personal hearing and submission of replies. This decision reinforces procedural safeguards for taxpayers under the GST regime.
The Court ruled that reassessment for a pre-CIRP period cannot continue when no claim was filed during CIRP and the approved resolution plan extinguished past dues. It held that post-approval tax demands are invalid.
Delhi ITAT held that adding hypothetical interest on security deposits to compute ALV is impermissible. The decision reverses lower authorities, confirming that only real contractual rent counts as income under section 23(1).
Delhi High Court held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without any incriminating material found during search. The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, reaffirming that additions under section 153A require evidence of undisclosed income or assets.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a GST demand order after notices were sent to the petitioner’s email Junk Folder, preventing awareness and response. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication, ensuring the petitioner can submit replies and be heard.
The Tribunal held that section 54 relief cannot be denied merely because the new property was purchased in the spouse’s name. It ruled that actual investment of capital gains is the key requirement.
The Court ruled that services rendered remotely cannot create a PE because the treaty requires services furnished within India through employees. virtual presence cannot substitute physical presence without treaty amendment.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Courts view that nomination alone guarantees absolute entitlement. It emphasized that beneficiaries must follow succession law, splitting the GPF 50% each between eligible family members.
