Madras High Court held that reopening the closed matter without assigning specific or new reasons is contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, order impugned is liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court directed Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the appeal within a period of 4 months and stay granted by the Court is directed to be extended till the disposal of appeal filed by the petitioner.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that it is mandatory for the AO to refer the valuation to the DVO if the assessee objects to the adoption of the stamp duty value and claims that the value adopted exceeds the fair market value.
Madras High Court held that Commissioner is duly empowered to designate proper officer for completion of assessment under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [TNGST Act].
CESTAT Chennai held that the mismatch in the SAD vs VAT / CST paid caused by different rates at which the tax is paid cannot be held against the refund applicant. Further, reasons for disbelieving the CA’s certificate also not clearly spelt out. Accordingly, rejection of refund claim unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-payment of an amount equal to the amount of advance tax unjustified as assessee has explained good and sufficient reason for not paying the amount.
Jharkhand High Court held that prosecution under section 276(C)(1) of the Income Tax Act liable to be quashed in absence of any penalty provision against the petitioner.
Madras High Court held that GST is not leviable on Ocean Freight Services as per Supreme Court judgement and relevant notification. Thus, any amount collected by department as GST on Ocean Freight Services needs to be refunded back.
ITAT Delhi held that bona fide error cannot be basis of imposition of penalty and hence imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by First Appellate Authority.
ITAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act on account of underreporting of income not justified as failing to furnish income tax return was bona fide.
