The respondent is directed to issue separate show cause notices regarding six assessment years within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in which case, the petitioner shall not raise issue of limitation.
ITAT Bangalore held that hearing notices sent by CIT(A) was not received by the assessee since notices were sent to old auditor’s email ID. Thus, non-appearance was neither wilful nor wanton hence ex-parte order of CIT(A) set aside.
Considering the judgment of Alnavar Credit Souharda Co-op Ltd noted above the AO is directed to decide the issue afresh regarding the claim of deduction made by the assessee.
Madras High Court remitted the matter back for fresh consideration in the matter of denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Zero Rated Sales effected under section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006.
ITAT Bangalore directed authorities not to dismiss rectification application u/s. 154 on the ground of limitation as the assessee was erroneously misled to deposit taxes and it is settled law that no tax can be collected without authority of law.
CESTAT Bangalore held that there is no requirement to make declaration of MRP in bill of entry under notification no. 21/2012-Cus. Dated 17.03.2012 granting exemption of 4% of SAD.
Karnataka High Court held that since rectification application was filed before passing of final assessment order, DRP ought to have waited till disposal of rectification application. Thus, final assessment order liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that wood roughly squared and half squared and not further manufactured is classifiable under tariff heading 4403.99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under tariff heading 44.07.
In the case of Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(7), Surat v. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara [2020] 114 com 481 (Guj.), Court had set aside the reassessment proceedings on the ground that no valid notice under Section 148 could be issued against a dead person.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 725 days in filing of an appeal since assessee is an agriculturist and is not aware of the intricacies of the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings.
