ITAT Indore set aside the ex parte appellate order after noting that the assessee had died and the legal heirs could not effectively pursue the proceedings. The Tribunal granted one final opportunity for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT Delhi held that the upload date of DRP directions on the ITBA portal must be considered for computing limitation under Section 144C(13). Since the final assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed period, the assessment was quashed as time-barred.
CESTAT Delhi held that imported ABS motors and sensors were capable of being used in motor vehicles and therefore excluded from concessional customs duty benefits. The Tribunal ruled that the exemption notification must be interpreted strictly.
ITAT Delhi held that amounts received from encashment of bank guarantees could not be treated as taxable income where the assessee acted only as custodian of government money. The Tribunal followed earlier rulings in the assessee’s own case and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
CESTAT Delhi held that overburden removal, excavation, and lignite loading formed part of integrated mining operations taxable only after introduction of “Mining Services” from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal ruled that incidental activities could not be separately taxed under site formation services.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiry or verification of creditors. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to sundry creditors and business transactions supported by documents and banking records.
CCPA held that sale of toys without mandatory BIS certification violated the Consumer Protection Act and Toys Quality Control Order. The Authority imposed a penalty and directed future compliance with mandatory standards.
GSTAT held that the builder failed to uniformly pass on additional GST input tax credit benefits to homebuyers in a housing project. The Tribunal directed refund of the remaining profiteered amount with 18% interest.
The Court ruled that refund claims under inverted duty structure cannot be restricted using the earlier anomalous formula once Rule 89(5) was amended to remove inconsistencies. The authorities were directed to reconsider the refund claims under the amended provisions.
The Delhi High Court held that income tax returns and taxable income details are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court ruled that such information cannot be disclosed merely because it is sought in a matrimonial dispute.
