Tribunal ruled that objections relating to defective title, encroachments, and legal disputes require proper valuation examination through a DVO reference. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
ITAT Delhi ruled that where an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, the Assessing Officer should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal set aside the capital gains addition for fresh determination.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail in an alleged fake ITC case after noting that investigation was complete and evidence was mainly documentary and electronic. The Court held that continued custody was not justified when no further interrogation was required.
Delhi HC held that a taxpayer can legally carry on business through a mobile phone in addition to the registered principal place of business.
Madras High Court held that objections regarding fraud, suppression, and penalty proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act should be raised before the appellate authority. The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction where statutory appeal remedies were available.
The High Court held that refund rejection orders must contain specific findings and proper reasoning. Since the appellate authority failed to provide a speaking order, the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments made for global brand, communications, and technology support services within the Deloitte network did not amount to royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal held that no transfer of copyright or intellectual property rights had taken place.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment order after finding that the taxpayer was given only one day to respond to the show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to file a reply.
ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not on an unimplemented extension proposal. The Tribunal directed recomputation after recognizing termination of the agreement before 2024.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon write-back. The Tribunal ruled that such taxation would amount to double taxation.
