ITAT Visakhapatnam upholds additions for demonetisation deposits but rules tax under section 115BBE for AY 2017-18 should apply at 30% instead of 60%.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order (Tvl. Sri Balaji Traders v DCIT), ruling that repeatedly uploading notices to an unusual portal tab is insufficient service, violating natural justice. The Court advised using RPAD when online notice fails.
CESTAT Mumbai sets aside order against Hawkins Cookers on alleged wrongful CENVAT credit of ₹68 lakh, remanding case to adjudicating authority for fresh review.
The ITAT Delhi has set aside tax additions made to Divya Exim Pvt. Ltd. and other assessees. The tribunal ruled that in completed assessments, additions cannot be based solely on third-party statements without corroborating incriminating material found during a search.
ITAT Delhi in RSWM Ltd. Khari Gram vs DCIT examines disputed additions under Section 69, allowability of education cess, and treatment of FPS/FMS, TUFS, and RIPS subsidies, emphasizing reliance on evidence and judicial precedents.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi has set aside a significant tax addition against Maple Destinations, ruling that the reassessment was based on uncorroborated, retracted statements and a denial of the assessee’s right to cross-examination, which violated principles of natural justice.
High Court dismissed a petition challenging a Section 148 notice for AY 2019-20, confirming that only faceless AOs can initiate reassessment, ensuring compliance with CBDT-mandated procedures.
The Delhi High Court has held that a jurisdictional assessing officer lacks the authority to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the implementation of the Faceless Assessment Schemes.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue reassessment notices to PC Jeweller, citing a previous ruling.
The Madras High Court allows an appeal by Tvl. Deepa Traders against a GST demand, condoning a 285-day delay. The court’s decision, citing the lack of a physical notice, directs the appellate authority to hear the case on its merits.
