Tribunal had set aside an order by CIT (Appeals) directing AO to recalculate the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) demand under section 194 C as the original demand had already been nullified by the Delhi High Court, making the CIT(A)’s directions untenable and CIT(A) erred by ignoring the High Court’s judgment and basing its decision on a different TDS provision (Section 194C) than the one applied by the AO (Section 194I).
Dealers registered under Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act), 2008 were duty bound to reverse or debit the input tax credit as prescribed under Section 13(6) of the VAT after the discontinuation of business by the operation of law.
Assessee-a government-owned entity, had initially filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring nil income after setting off carried-forward losses and reported book profits of Rs. 26.90 crore under the MAT provisions of Section 115JB.
Tribunal also took note of the fact that AO had merely reproduced identical reasons for multiple years without verifying facts or forming a belief based on individual year-specific material.
It also referred to similar findings in Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, LLC vs DCIT and other precedents, reinforcing that exempt income did not form part of the computation of total income under Indian law.
Revenue argued that the refund claims were time-barred and that Section 27 of the Customs Act should apply strictly. They further submitted that the Supreme Court had not conclusively resolved the divergence between the Delhi and Bombay High Court positions. On appeal.
Time for remitting the balance bid amount in an e-auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) could be extended by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in exceptional and appropriate cases.
Therefore, such interest partook the character of the compensation itself. The Court further observed that the statutory obligation to pay compensation for compulsory acquisition was rooted in Article 300A of the Constitution, which safeguarded a citizen’s right to property.
Additions under Section 69A could not be sustained without concrete evidence and due process and AO had not brought any tangible evidence to prove the alleged cash loan.
Thereafter, there was change in incumbent and fresh opportunity was provided and notice u/s.142(1) was issued. But this notice was returned back with the remarks that “the assessee was not in given address”.
