ITAT Delhi held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should not be decided before disposal of the related quantum appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Chennai held that an exporter cannot be taxed under reverse charge for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds where no service recipient relationship was established with the foreign bank.
The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey number error. It directed deletion of the duplicate addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Delhi High Court held that material recovered during a search can validly form the basis of reassessment proceedings even if the search is later alleged to be illegal. The Court ruled that proceedings initiated on the basis of such material do not automatically become void.
The Kerala High Court held that delay condonation applications under Section 119(2)(b) must comply with the revised five-year limitation prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Court ruled that authorities cannot entertain applications filed beyond the revised period.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CPC cannot suo motu reclassify an apartment owners association as a co-operative society while processing returns under Section 143(1). The Tribunal deleted the Rs. 97,690 demand after finding the adjustment beyond the scope of prima facie processing.
The Madras High Court refused to quash prosecution under Section 276C(2) after noting continued non-payment of admitted tax liability and prolonged default. The Court held that issues raised by the assessee should be decided during trial.
Tripura High Court granted leave to challenge release of seized gold after noting that confiscation orders had already been upheld by appellate authorities and CESTAT. The Court held that the trial court’s release order prima facie contradicted those finalized confiscation proceedings.
CESTAT Mumbai held that a mere demand notice cannot replace the statutory show cause notice required under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal ruled that recovery proceedings initiated without proper notice were legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the Settlement Commission’s duty calculations did not establish any CVD component for certain advance licences, making the corresponding credit claim unsustainable.
