ITAT Chennai condoned a 311-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits with supporting documents.
ITAT Chennai held that indexation on construction cost cannot be denied when details of the building are already contained in the registered sale deed and its annexure. The Tribunal directed recomputation of capital gains after allowing indexed construction cost.
The Kerala High Court remanded the matter after finding that the ITAT failed to expressly adjudicate the challenge to the validity of approval under Section 153D. The ruling underscores the need for tribunals to address every material issue raised before them.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the order rejecting revocation of GST registration because documents submitted by the taxpayer were not considered. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after a personal hearing.
The Bombay High Court held that a corporate guarantee cannot be equated with a bank guarantee and upheld a 0.5% guarantee commission rate. The Court rejected the Revenue’s challenge to the 3% rate adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer.
The Karnataka High Court condoned the delay in filing appeals after noting that the issue relating to contributions under Section 57(2A) of the KCS Act had remained unresolved for over a decade. The Court also directed the CIT (Appeals) to decide the remanded matter within four months.
The Karnataka High Court held that a Magistrate conducting recovery proceedings under the KVAT Act has no authority to determine the validity of statutory ‘H’ Forms. The Court directed the taxpayer to approach the Assessing Authority instead.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld reassessment proceedings after finding that seized diaries recorded unaccounted cash transactions exceeding prescribed limits. The Tribunal held that statutory conditions for reopening were satisfied.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a reassessment after finding that the Section 148 notice was based on an incorrect allegation of property sale. The Court held that reopening requires bona fide reasons supported by relevant material.
The applicant sought clarification on the applicability of Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate) and the related GST rate. The Maharashtra AAR allowed withdrawal of the application without examining the merits.
