The ITAT Pune has quashed a tax assessment order against Pramod Manikchand Dugad, ruling that the Assessing Officer violated a key judicial precedent by finalizing the assessment less than four weeks after rejecting the taxpayer’s objections.
ITAT Pune has granted partial relief to an assessee, deleting a ₹5 lakh disallowance related to an unexplained cash deposit. Tribunal, however, upheld disallowance of a ₹10 lakh cash gift, ruling that an unregistered gift deed with no witnesses was insufficient evidence, especially when donor was deceased.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed a tax appeal by Workenstein Collaborative Spaces Pvt. Ltd., ruling that a company cannot be held responsible for its suppliers’ failure to file returns or respond to notices.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal from the Income Tax Department, affirming the Tribunal’s decision to remand a case for reconsideration of an 80G registration application.
In a landmark ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that tax disallowance under Section 14A must be limited to investments that yielded exempt income, dismissing the tax department’s appeal against Nippon Life.
The Delhi High Court has upheld a Customs Department seizure of mobile tempered glass labeled “Made in China,” directing the petitioner to join the investigation and avail appellate remedies.
The Uttarakhand High Court has permitted a taxpayer to apply for paying GST dues in installments under Section 80 of the GST Act, granting a temporary stay on recovery proceedings.
The Supreme Court modified a High Court order, directing the tax authority to dispose of a school’s income tax refund appeal within two months instead of one year.
GSTAT rules on P&G’s anti-profiteering case, deciding the company is not required to pay interest on a profiteered amount of ₹6.88 lakhs. The interest clause was deemed prospective, not retrospective.
The Rajasthan High Court, citing prior judgments, invalidated a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the designated Faceless Assessing Officer.
