CESTAT Chennai reduces penalties imposed on Artisan’s Welfare Society for attempting to export red sander wood in the form of pillar tops in violation of Customs Act and Foreign Trade Act.
The Delhi ITAT upheld that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to the income of the taxpayer. The case involved Diamond Tradex Co. Ltd. and ACIT for A.Y. 2010-11.
The Kerala High Court rules in favor of Director of Income Tax in Sub Registrar vs Director of Income Tax, asserting that the bonafide impression of AIR submission by a predecessor isn’t a “reasonable cause” for 526-day delay.
The ITAT Chandigarh directs reassessment in a case where the appellant, Puran Singh, was unaware of a notice due to its delivery on his counsel’s e-mail ID, leading to the inability to provide explanations on cash deposits.
In a recent case, Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs C.c.e. Jaipur, the Rajasthan High Court has decided that welding electrodes used for maintenance and repair are inputs and not part of the manufacturing process.
ITAT has held in the case of Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO that when there is no variation in the returned and assessable income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable.
Government of India, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) announces amendment in the export policy of Non-Basmati rice under HS Code 1006 30 90. Read the notification for revised export policies and conditions.
An analysis of the landmark case Taranjeet Singh Alagh vs ITO, in which the ITAT Delhi provides key clarifications on the penalties under section 271B of the Income Tax Act relating to account audits and book maintenance.
ITAT Pune has set aside an NFAC order in the Kongnoli Sarva Seva Society Ltd vs ITO case. The ruling established that incorrect claims of deductions or expenses in ITR does not equate to the concealment of income
The ITAT in Mumbai cancels penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd. The tribunal held that such penalties aren’t applicable when additions are made purely on estimation
