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.
Read how the Rajasthan High Court handled a technical objection by the tax department. The court ruled that an application for the release of seized items should not be rejected due to a missing word in the address, emphasizing the need for diligent processing by officials.
In Sicily Paul vs. ITO, the ITAT Cochin ruled that cash deposits made during demonetisation from a son-in-law’s NRE account were sufficiently explained, deleting a ₹12 lakh addition. The ruling rejected the lower authorities’ assumption that the funds had been used elsewhere.
ITAT Chennai upholds a hospital’s claim for a tax deduction under Section 35AD, ruling that a medical director’s certificate and other evidence confirm the 100-bed requirement was met, despite initial departmental findings.
The Delhi High Court ordered the conditional release of a rare B.C. Sanyal painting, challenging a customs order that revalued it and imposed fines on Uday Jain’s art gallery.
In ACIT vs. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT Ranchi upheld the deletion of a Rs. 6 crore income addition, ruling that the director’s statement alone, without corroborative evidence, could not be the basis for assessment.
Chennai ITAT rules that S. 194C(6) (obtaining PAN) and S. 194C(7) (filing statement) are independent. A procedural lapse in filing Form 26Q cannot justify a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).
The Orissa High Court dismisses a petition by Maa Sarala Steel, ruling that an alternative remedy is available once the detailed GST order is served, even if it was initially missing.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that an Assessing Officer could not disregard the Tribunal’s prior order regarding the manual vs. electronic filing of Form 10, deleting the disallowance.
