ITAT Kolkata held that in terms of block assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, reopening of unabated assessment without any incriminating material found with respect to concerned assessment year is impermissible in law.
Madras High Court held that assessee is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount since the assessee was unable to access GST portal and respond to the notice issued. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
Madras HC held that passing of order without providing opportunity of personal hearing is against principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order set aside and directed to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to establish their case on merits.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 towards amount received as gift from son not justified since addition is made in a baseless manner, solely relying on unverified newspaper reports. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Held that the deposits made by the assessee were in the nature of fixed deposit investments. Therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee when the bank went to liquidation is only a capital loss.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license without providing relied upon documents and statements by the Inquiry Officer is against the principles of natural justice and hence the order deserves to be set aside.
Madras High Court held that since petitioner failed to respond to notice issued for mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and non-payment of interest, it is directed that opportunity to explain discrepancies will be granted on payment of 25% of disputed tax.
Madras High Court held that in terms of section 245I, the Settlement Commission cannot re-open its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act.
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator cannot create sub-lease over properties not owned by the corporate debtor without prior permission of concerned authority. Accordingly, action to sub-lease without specific permission is incorrect and illegal.
ITAT Surat held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) since the assessee was displaced from his office due to attachment of office on account of some purported fraud committed by him is sufficient cause.
