The Tribunal held that Schedule-I of ITR-7 applies only to amounts accumulated under Section 11(2) and not to deemed application under Explanation (1) to Section 11(1). It deleted the addition after finding that the lower authorities had incorrectly interpreted the ITR instructions.
Tribunal held that proviso to Regulation 7A allows insolvency professionals to continue assignments already underway even after their Authorisation for Assignment expires. Ruling distinguishes continuation of existing assignments from acceptance of fresh assignments.
The High Court held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without recording reasons in writing and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, contrary to Rule 46A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after following the prescribed procedure.
The Court ruled that the statutory saving clause permits service tax proceedings to be instituted, continued, and enforced after the repeal of the Finance Act provisions. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to contest the matter before the adjudicating authority.
The Gauhati High Court held that Customs could not invoke Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act without material establishing the foreign origin of the seized areca nuts. The Court ruled that mere suspicion cannot substitute the statutory requirement of “reason to believe.”
CESTAT Delhi held that tax authorities cannot compel an assessee to adopt a particular compliance option under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Since the appellant had availed only proportionate eligible credit, the demand under Rule 6(3) was set aside.
The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive where the show cause notice fails to specify the exact statutory clause invoked. It ruled that such a vague notice violates the requirement of informing the assessee of the precise charge, leading to deletion of the penalty.
ITAT Hyderabad held that gold deposit agreements produced after the survey, without contemporaneous evidence or book entries, could not explain excess gold found during survey. The addition of ₹3.75 crore was therefore sustained.
The Madras High Court held that moulds and dies could not qualify as capital goods under the TNVAT Act because they were not used within the State for manufacture. Consequently, VAT at 14.5% under the residuary entry was upheld for inter-State sales without C-Forms.
The ITAT held that the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained as the assessee had produced land records, agricultural sale bills, and bank statements supporting the agricultural income. The Tribunal found that these documents had been ignored during assessment.
