ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act merely taking second opinion unjustified. Further, view taken by AO cannot be set aside or deferred as per provisions of section 263.
Allahabad High Court held that if excess stock is found at the time of survey, then proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act should be pressed in service and not proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act
ITAT Jaipur held that provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in statement of profit & loss account.
Delhi High Court held that department cannot possibly seek to justify the retention of refund claim on account of its having been deposited voluntarily or being barred by limitation. Accordingly, refund claim allowed.
ITAT Surat held that considering the veracity of evidence, additional evidence filed by the assessee is essential and has direct bearing on all the additions/ disallowance, hence, all the additional evidence are taken on record. Accordingly, matter restored back.
Kerala High Court held that as transportation costs from place of removal to buyer’s premises not included in the assessable value of goods for purpose of payment of Central Excise duty hence service tax levied on such transportation cost not available as CENVAT Credit.
Gujarat High Court held that application filed u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act should be considered without adopting any pedantic technical approach. Accordingly, belated return filing permitted by exercising powers u/s. 119(2)(b).
Bombay High Court held that interest in terms of Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 is payable from the date of receipt of the application for refund and not from the date of passing of the order of refund.
ITAT Kolkata held that allotment letter given by the developer to the assessee way back in 2010 would be construed as an agreement of purchase between the developer and the assessee. Thus, addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act not survived.
It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the authority issuing the notice dated 23.06.2024 is a prescribed income-tax authority, he cannot issue a notice but can merely serve a notice.
