Jharkhand High Court held that when search is initiated, penalty is leviable under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) post initiation of search is unsustainable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that sale of vacant plot is not eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that assessee being a non-resident entrusted the work to representative in India whose inaction caused delay of 36 days in filing of an appeal is reasonable cause to condone the delay.
CESTAT Chennai held that tax liability was fastened upon the appellant without the principles of audi alteram partem (i.e. without referring to the documents furnished by the appellant) is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Indore held that the expenditure incurred for obtaining loan is a revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the fee paid for renewal of cash-credit is a revenue expenditure.
CESTAT Chennai held that an assessee cannot avail of the options under Rule 6(2) and 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 simultaneously. Once the option is availed, other option cannot be chosen simultaneously.
Bombay High Court held that as per Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST dated 18 March 2020 dealing with non-constitution of Appellate Tribunal. It is clarified that the appeal to tribunal can be made within three months (six months in case of appeals by the Government) from the date of communication of order or date on which the President or the State President, as the case may be, of the Appellate Tribunal enters office, whichever is later.
ITAT Delhi held that investment done from the surplus funds in FDs has nothing to do with the business connection. Accordingly, interest received from the same is to be treated under separate head i.e. Income from other sources and not as business income.
Gujarat High Court held that in case there is any doubt with regard to export of goods, then, Customs Authority needs to take up the issue and not GST Authority.
Karnataka High Court held that amendment to Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) can be done only by the Central Government and not by DGFT. Whereas, amendment to the procedure can be done by DGFT.
