It is settled proposition of law that CBDT circulars are binding on department and it has to be strictly followed by officers of department. AO cannot be permitted to travel beyond the issues for which case was selected for limited scrutiny without taking mandatory permission from concerned PCIT or Pr.CCIT.
Even if a house property is vacant for the whole of the current year, but it is let out in earlier years, then benefit of vacancy allowance u/s 23(1)(c) must be allowed and no addition towards notional rent can be made by applying section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Vivek Jain v ACIT [337 ITR 74 (AP)] distinguished.
Pune ITAT voids Rs 1 crore penalty against Karia Builders. Tribunal rules penalty proceedings are invalid if the underlying assessment is legally flawed and highlights the need for proper sanction for reassessment notices.
The ITAT Pune ruled on whether land acquisition compensation received by a partnership firm is taxable, clarifying the scope of exemptions under the RFCTLAAR Act and related circulars.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against a penalty deletion, ruling it was not maintainable due to a low tax effect. The Tribunal held that the new CBDT Circulars, which do not include an exception for audit objections, are applicable to pending appeals.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a rectification order against Avia Xpert, ruling the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions was illegal due to a lack of prior notice and the issue being a debatable matter at the time.
The ITAT Pune ruled on whether an assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue concerning cash deposits during the demonetization period, providing key clarifications on Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
If any assessment proceedings are to be initiated by AO by relying on any information found during search action conducted on third party, then the Dept must resort to special provisions of section 153C and notice issued u/s 148 in such scenario is bad in law.
Supreme Court directs a petitioner to approach the GST Council regarding a mechanism to track and verify GST compliance by foreign OIDAR service providers.
Delhi High Court denies a trader’s GST refund petition, citing the cancellation of their GST registration and a failure to disclose this key information.
