The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A cannot be mechanically invoked without establishing that the deposits constitute unexplained income. Evidence of genuine business activity justified taxation only of the profit component.
The document clarifies that taxpayers may be liable to pay interest under Section 234D when refunds granted under Section 143(1) exceed the amount ultimately determined on regular assessment. It explains the rate, period, computation method, and adjustment provisions applicable to interest on excess refunds.
The ITAT Mumbai held that settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not extinguish the legal existence of a reassessment order. Limitation under Section 154 must therefore be computed from the reassessment order, making the rectification application maintainable.
The Tribunal observed that multiple departmental orders and ER-1 returns consistently reflected classification under CETI 2403 99 10. The later stand taken in the show cause notice was found to be inconsistent with the department’s earlier conduct. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
The document outlines the circumstances in which taxpayers become liable to pay interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act. It explains the applicable rates, computation methodology, periods of levy, exceptions, and practical illustrations relating to delayed return filing, advance tax defaults, and deferment of advance tax instalments.
CESTAT Delhi sustained the service tax demand after finding that the royalty amounts were based on receipts acknowledged by the appellant’s Director. The Tribunal held that the demand covered only amounts actually received.
The Kerala High Court set aside a show cause notice covering multiple financial years, holding that such composite notices were legally unsustainable. The authorities were permitted to issue separate notices for each assessment year.
The Tribunal held that business promotion and development expenses cannot be disallowed without concrete evidence establishing their non-genuineness. Mere assumptions and doubts are insufficient to deny legitimate business expenditure.
The Kerala High Court set aside both the show cause notice and order-in-original issued for multiple assessment years through a single proceeding. The Court permitted fresh action through separate notices for each relevant year.
The ITAT Agra declined to condone an extraordinary delay of 2,799 days in filing the quantum appeal, holding that the explanation regarding non-service of the appellate order did not constitute sufficient cause. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
