The article analyses whether declaring profits below presumptive rates automatically triggers tax audit under the Income-tax Act, 2025. It concludes that the law’s ambiguity could support a narrower interpretation limiting audit requirements.
The Tribunal held that rebate under section 87A could not be denied merely because LTCG exceeded Rs.1 lakh. It ruled that the relevant consideration was the tax computed on such gains, leading to deletion of the adjustment made under section 143(1).
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that Cenvat Credit cannot be retained when based on invoices issued by fake or non-existent suppliers. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to verify supplier identity as required under Rule 7(2).
The High Court quashed an Order-in-Original after finding that the petitioner alleged lack of notice and denial of hearing. It restored the proceedings for fresh consideration on merits.
The Madras High Court directed fresh consideration of an OBC-NCL certificate application in light of the Supreme Court’s clarification on income computation. It emphasized that the relevant guidelines must be considered while deciding eligibility.
The Tribunal held that penalties for abetment could not survive when the actual importer was neither identified nor proceeded against. The absence of a principal offender undermined the charge under Section 112(a).
The Tribunal held that while failures in supervision and due diligence were established, there was no conclusive proof of conscious involvement in fraudulent drawback exports. It upheld forfeiture of security deposit without revoking the licence.
The Tribunal held that the department could not reject a genuine Load Port Chartered Engineer’s Certificate in favour of a local report lacking supporting details. The declared transaction value was restored for customs assessment.
The Tribunal classified AKD Wax under Heading 34049090 based on test reports and HSN notes. However, it held that prolonged departmental acceptance of an earlier classification defeated allegations of suppression.
The Tribunal held that Rule 11(3) does not apply where common inputs are used for both exempted and dutiable products. Credit balances could continue to be utilised for payment of duty on dutiable goods.
