Delhi High Court held that in order to avoid improper service to parties and to avoid ex-parte proceedings, it is incumbent that service of notices ought to be effected even through email and on the common portal, in addition to the traditional methods as per Section 153.
Delhi High Court held that co-accused permitted to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or HUF. Accordingly, matter remitted back to decide afresh in light of CBDT circular dated 17.10.2024.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that department imposed anti-dumping duty on un-printed sheets treating it to be Taiwanese origin, hence burden of proof lies on department to establish the same. In absence of any proof, demand cannot be sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that inadvertent mentioning of wrong area in Form 10CCB resulted into denial of claim u/s. 80IC. Thus, clam allowed since it is proved that establishment of assessee exists in eligible area. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad directs CIT(A) to decide the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) due to delay filing of Form No. 67 to be decided with other pending appeal of the same assessment year. Accordingly, matter remitted to CIT(A).
ITAT Surat held that disallowance of unaccounted purchases restricted to 12.5% of purchases instead of 25% as held by CIT(A). Accordingly, addition towards unaccounted purchases restricted.
ITAT Surat held that rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing refund claim u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is not an appealable order u/s. 253. Thus, appeal dismissed as infructuous.
ITAT Delhi held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act would not survive since the assessment order is held to be non-est. Thus, appeal dismissed as having become infructuous.
Madras High Court held that Local Committee on High Pitched Scrutiny Assessment are not required to grant an opportunity of being heard as there is no provisions laid down in the SOP. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai held that fees is payable to Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) from the date he took charge of IRP till the date of appointment of new Resolution Professional. Accordingly, directed to pay additional fees from 53 days.
