This article analyses how Section 74A alters the GST penalty framework by weakening the role of intent. The key takeaway is that even bona fide disputes may now face enhanced penal exposure.
The Tribunal examined whether a branch office treated as a permanent establishment can deduct head-office cost reimbursements. ITAT held that full cost deduction is mandatory so that only profits attributable to the PE are taxed under Article 7.
Saluja Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi) The ITAT Ranchi quashed the reassessment for AY 2013–14, holding that the reasons recorded for reopening were fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect. The assessee’s original assessment had been completed under section 143(3) after detailed scrutiny of share application money and share premium, including issuance of […]
The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition has been deleted. Once the foundation fails, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must also fall.
The Tribunal ruled that a draft assessment order is the statutory trigger for DRP proceedings. Absence of a valid draft order against an existing entity vitiates the entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that an appeal cannot be dismissed on the assumption of earlier adjudication without evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance can be made when ample interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that diversion cannot be presumed without establishing a nexus with borrowed funds.
The Tribunal considered whether disallowance under section 14A was justified merely because exempt income was earned. It ruled that without corresponding investments in the assessee’s books, section 14A cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal held that issuing a Section 143(2) notice is compulsory once a return is filed under Section 148. Absence of such notice vitiates jurisdiction and nullifies the reassessment.
The ruling clarified that the Finance Act, 2021 amendment applies only from AY 2022–23. For earlier years, exemption cannot be denied by treating the amendment as retrospective.
