The Madras High Court held that penalty cannot be imposed when the entire turnover is disclosed and the incorrect classification arose from a bona fide belief. The Court upheld the deletion of penalty as there was no evidence of tax evasion or mala fide intention.
The Court held that a taxpayer who cleared outstanding GST dues could apply for revocation of a cancelled registration despite the application not being entertained earlier due to limitation. The authority must examine the application after verifying payment and return compliance.
The ITAT Ranchi held that a retired non-government employee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(10AA)(ii) for the entire leave encashment amount in view of CBDT Notification No. 31/2023. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the claim.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that bagasse is an agricultural waste and not a manufactured product, making Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules inapplicable. Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeals)’ order and dismissed Revenue’s demand for credit reversal, interest, and penalty.
The ITAT Bangalore held that interest earned on compulsory statutory deposits made under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act constitutes business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It set aside the orders denying the deduction.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 after finding that a loose paper seized from a third party did not establish any live link with the assessee. The Court held that vague and non-specific material cannot justify reopening of assessment.
The Gujarat High Court held that reassessment cannot be sustained merely because of high-value bank transactions without evidence of escaped income. It quashed the Section 148 notices and Section 148A(3) orders after finding that the transactions were recorded in audited books and adequately explained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition after finding no direct link between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entries.
The Karnataka High Court held that merely filing an income tax return does not amount to retracting a statement recorded under Section 132(4). It upheld the restoration of the Rs.1.5 crore addition after finding the alleged retraction to be belated.
The Karnataka High Court held that the petitioner must receive a real opportunity to respond before an adjudication order is passed. It quashed the GST demand and restored the proceedings for fresh consideration.
