The ITAT held that the PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 to substitute the AO’s plausible view, ruling that a business disallowance under Section 37(1) does not automatically become deemed income under Section 69C.
The Gujarat High Court held that a reassessment notice issued in the name of a deceased person is void and unenforceable, quashing the notice and related order.
ITAT Chennai ruled that the CIT(E)’s scope for Section 12AB registration is limited to verifying charitable objects and activity genuineness, not conducting a full assessment of commercial income. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration.
The Madras High Court held that recovery of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) shall remain stayed when the main income tax appeal involving related issues has been admitted by the court.
The issue was whether customs could deny AIFTA duty exemption for ten consignments based only on irregularities found in a separate, single import. The CESTAT set aside the duty demand, holding that the exemption cannot be denied without a finding on the authenticity or validity of the individual Certificate of Origin (COO).
The Bombay High Court ruled that the Assessing Officer’s steps under Section 148A, taken despite a continuing stay order, were illegal and directed refund adjustment amounts to be deposited in court.
The Tribunal found that CAM payments are contractual in nature and not for use of property, making 2% TDS deduction under Section 194C appropriate.
In a ruling on non-maintainability, the ITAT found the CIT(E) erred by cancelling the society’s 12A(1)(ac) application merely through an intimation without granting a mandatory hearing. The case has been sent back for a decision on merits.
The Delhi High Court set aside GST demands on Oriental Insurance Company Limited, applying CBIC Circular No. 228/22/2024-GST that regularized reinsurance services for the period from 1 July 2017 to 24 January 2018.
The Gauhati High Court set aside a GST order issued without a valid show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the AGST Act, holding that a DRC-01 summary cannot replace a detailed notice.
