The High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition seeking action on an alleged tax evasion complaint, holding that no case for issuing a writ of mandamus was made out at that stage. It found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand order after finding that notices were uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the prescribed tab. The Court directed issuance of a fresh notice with at least 15 clear days’ notice.
The ITAT held that a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 80-IA(10) cannot be sustained without proving the statutory conditions, including close connection, arranged business transactions, and more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal deleted the adjustment for lack of foundational evidence.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal as time-barred despite a condonation application being on record. The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
The ITAT Ahmedabad admitted additional evidence relating to foreign remittances and restored the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication. It held that the documents were necessary for proper determination of the issues.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that unexplained investment under Section 69 can be taxed only in the year the investment is actually made. Since the property payments were made in an earlier financial year, the additions for A.Y. 2016-17 were deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹61.22 crore after finding the facts identical to an earlier assessment year. It held that a pending High Court appeal does not dilute the binding nature of an unreversed Tribunal decision.
ITAT ruled that determining the arm’s length price of management service fees at Nil without following a prescribed transfer pricing methodology was not sustainable. It upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting both the management fee and manufacturing segment adjustments.
The Allahabad High Court held that filing an appeal against an appellate order does not automatically stay its operation. It directed immediate restoration of GST registration in compliance with the appellate authority’s order.
The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlights the extended filing timeline and the revised rules governing reassessment proceedings.
