The Allahabad High Court quashed GST registration cancellation and revocation rejection orders after finding that hearing dates were fixed before the expiry of the reply period. The Court held that such notices deny a meaningful opportunity of hearing and violate natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on management fees after finding that identical issues in the assessee’s own earlier years had already been decided in its favour. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D reflected no proper application of mind and was issued in a mechanical manner. As a result, the assessments framed pursuant to such approval were quashed.
The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in rectifying its earlier order because the amendment to Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) operated retrospectively from 01.04.1968. The appeals were dismissed and the issue was decided against the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore upheld the CIT(A)’s decision that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were barred by limitation. The Tribunal found no error in relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling on reassessment timelines.
The ITAT held that compensation paid to terminate a land sale agreement was a business expenditure incurred for commercial reasons. The amount could not be treated as part of closing stock and was allowable under Section 37.
The Delhi High Court upheld deletion of additions after authorities under the Black Money Act concluded that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the foreign assets. The Court held that a protective assessment could not survive on those facts.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the recorded reasons for reopening were undated and failed to establish compliance with Section 148 requirements. The assessment was quashed as a jurisdictional defect.
The Bombay High Court held that a 13-day delay in filing Form 10-IC should be condoned where eligibility for Section 115BAA was undisputed. The Court ruled that procedural requirements cannot override substantive statutory benefits.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP by following its earlier decision in connected matters. The dispute relating to advance sale of room nights and Holiday Scheme Surrender Value remained governed by settled precedent.
