Madras High Court held that initiation of proceedings for reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on material already on record and without new/ tangible information is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as voluntary deposit of tax was done before receiving notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Raipur held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act within the time period contemplated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) to Section 275, i.e six months from the end of the month in which appellate order was received is duly justified.
ITAT Delhi held that assessee has placed sufficient evidences to discharge initial onus to explain the nature and source of loans. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan unjustified.
ITAT Jodhpur held that levying late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act for delay in filing TDS return for 4th quarter of F.Y. 2012-2013 unwarranted as power to levy fees has come into effect only from 01.06.2015
Allahabad High Court held that both the goods i.e. ‘Bakery Shortening’ and ‘Vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable oil)’ are being treated as one under Central Excise Tariff Act as well as Customs Tariff Act. Hence, both are to be treated as same even under Sales Tax Law.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that extreme penalty of revocation of custom broker licence for violating obligation under regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 unwarranted, however, imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that receipts taxable under Fees for Technical/ Included Services (FTS/FIS) as assessee failed to prove that it is actual reimbursement as there is no basis of allocation or actual cost incurred for affiliates.
CESTAT Delhi held that service provided by technical, inspection and certification agency in relation to inspection and certification of export goods is liable to service tax under ‘Technical, Inspection and Certification Service’.
Kerala High Court set aside the order with direction to Excise Commissioner to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and decide the distance as per Abkari Laws since there is a Temple right opposite to the bar in question.
