The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(E) failed to properly consider the assessees replies, documents, and objections before rejecting the Section 12AB application. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.
This article explains how provisions of the Income Tax Act, GAAR, and the Benami law are used to tackle shell companies, unexplained cash credits, and money laundering operations in India.
ITAT Bangalore held that the presence of associate or nominal members does not disqualify a co-operative society from claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
ITAT Hyderabad held that assessment orders passed pursuant to earlier remand directions were barred by limitation under Section 153. The Tribunal set aside all consequential transfer pricing assessment orders dated 06.12.2024.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that liquidated damages received for contractual delays cannot be treated as consideration for “tolerating an act” under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal set aside service tax demand and penalty imposed on such receipts.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused linked to alleged fake GST billing and forged documents. The Court noted that the offence was triable by a Magistrate and the petitioner had already spent about six months in custody.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that sugar syrup used in biscuit manufacturing could not be classified under tariff heading 17029090 since its fructose content was only 31%. The Tribunal set aside excise duty demands and penalties imposed on the manufacturer.
ITAT ruled that appellate powers under Section 251 are confined to assessment year under appeal. Directions to reopen completed assessments for another year were held beyond jurisdiction.
Delhi ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to alleged bogus share capital.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment proceedings based on loose papers referring to non-agricultural land could not justify reopening where assessee had sold agricultural land. Court ruled that alleged escapement of income was based only on hypothesis and conjecture.
