The Delhi High Court held that CBDT Circular dated 18.11.2024 clearly prescribed a maximum period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year for seeking condonation of delay. Since the application for AY 2020-21 was filed after 31.03.2024, the Court upheld its rejection as time-barred.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT order restricting disallowance on alleged bogus purchases to 6% instead of 100%. The Court held that only the income component embedded in disputed transactions could be taxed.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment proceedings could not continue where Revenue failed to establish any independent material connecting assessee to alleged cash transactions. Section 148 notice based solely on a broker’s seized register was quashed.
The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Officer changes his opinion on the same material. The Court reaffirmed that reassessment requires tangible material showing escapement of income.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
The Tribunal held that effective opportunity was not provided before rejecting the applications for registration and approval. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for reconsideration in accordance with law.
CESTAT Bangalore held that limitation for filing a service tax appeal depends on the actual date of communication of the order, not merely the date of issuance. The Tribunal remanded the matter after finding no proof of delivery of the adjudication orders.
ITAT Pune held that delay caused by lack of proper legal advice and dependence on tax consultants constituted reasonable cause. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on Section 80P deduction.
CESTAT Delhi held that providing buses with drivers to RSRTC did not amount to Rent-a-Cab Service since operational control remained with the owner. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand and penalties.
ITAT Mumbai accepted part of the assessee’s explanation that cash used for credit card payments came from family members. The Tribunal relied on income tax returns, bank statements, and affidavits while granting partial relief.
