Assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. However, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the benefit of Section 80-I upon the conversion of a proprietorship concern or the partnership firm to a Private Limited Company, is answered in favour of the assessee.
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter involving applicability of service tax on supply of manpower involved in garbage collection as well as auto tipper vis-à-vis its coverage in mega exemption notification 12/2012 as amended by 25/2012.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that there is no basis for linking assessee’s alleged violation of RBI notification dated 8th November 2016 to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, when the nature and source is explained.
ITAT Bangalore in the case of cash deposit during demonetization period directed assessee to file KYC of the depositors and accordingly directed AO to verify the same and allow if found in order.
Madras High Court held that Settlement Commission not authorized to rectify the order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act as power of rectification vested to Settlement Commission only with effect from 01.06.2011.
Gujarat High Court held that issuance of cryptic notice and order of cancellation of GST registration is also passed without giving any reason by the authorities is unsustainable. Accordingly, order cancelling registration is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Finance Act, 2022 amended section 14A of the Income Tax Act doesn’t have retrospective effect. The said amended provisions are effective from 1st April 2022.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 justified as AO was fully ignorant about verification of unsecure loan and addition of 10% unsecured loan by AO was baseless hence assessment order turned out to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
CESTAT Bangalore held that no excise duty is leviable on the subject goods i.e. [imported ‘Insoluble Sulphur’] and therefore no additional duty will be levied. Accordingly, levy of CVD @10% unsustainable.
