Pune ITAT held that penalty for under-reporting of income cannot survive where the Assessing Officer accepts the income declared in response to notice under Section 148 without any addition. The Tribunal deleted the entire penalty under Section 270A.
Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively rejected the books of accounts after recording discrepancies. The Court upheld the Section 69B addition for unexplained investment in building construction.
ITAT Mumbai held that prolonged non-payment of interest and repeated amendments to loan agreements justified benchmarking AE loans at a fixed 6.5% rate instead of floating LIBOR rates. The Tribunal also directed grant of credit for interest income already offered to tax suo motu.
CESTAT Chennai held that Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution was correctly classifiable under CTH 9018 as the issue had already been decided in the importer’s favour and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Gauhati High Court held that proceedings initiated through a time-barred show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act were without jurisdiction. The adjudication order was consequently quashed.
Pune ITAT held that appellate authorities must adjudicate issues raised in appeals and cannot mechanically dismiss matters for non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the case for fresh consideration on merits.
Pune ITAT observed that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years may not be maintainable where the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. The matter was remanded for verification of jurisdictional facts and statutory notices.
The High Court held that the State could not continue GST proceedings or block ITC after failing to submit its claim during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The impugned notice and ITC blockage were set aside.
The High Court clarified that completed assessments do not abate upon search proceedings because no assessment proceedings remain pending. However, the earlier assessment loses enforceability after a fresh Section 153A assessment is passed.
The Tribunal held that deducting TDS only on part of the purchase price of immovable property was contrary to Section 194IA. TDS was required to be deducted on the full consideration of ₹4.81 crore.
