The Court dismissed a plea seeking refund of GST penalty paid during detention of goods, observing that the taxpayer had made payment without protest and had not pursued the statutory appellate remedy.
ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Delhi ITAT held that Dividend Distribution Tax paid on dividends to non-resident shareholders could be restricted to the treaty rate under applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court ruling that DDT is, in substance, a tax on shareholder dividend income.
The Tribunal held that invocation of the five-year limitation period requires proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, which was absent in the case.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and bank records. The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot be sustained merely on suspicion.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under Section 133(6). The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding supporting invoices, confirmations, and banking records on record.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unlocking and activating mobile phones before export only amounted to product configuration and not “use” under the Drawback Rules. The Tribunal therefore quashed confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the exporter.
ITAT Rajkot held that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income. The Tribunal upheld restriction of the addition to 13.7% instead of the full purchase amount.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
Tribunal noted the assessee’s contention that only his share in jointly owned properties could be taxed instead of the entire transaction value. It directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter on merits after considering documentary evidence.
