The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction in the assessment order is mandatory before initiating penalty under Section 271D. In the absence of such satisfaction, the penalties were deleted.
The ITAT held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding violations of Sections 269SS and 269T in the assessment order. The Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
The High Court ruled that the relevant date for filing refund claims is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange under the substituted notification. The refund claims were held to be beyond the limitation period.
The Delhi High Court held that the pre-deposit requirement introduced by the third proviso to Section 74(1) of the DVAT Act could not apply to returns filed before the amendment. The objections were directed to be heard without insisting on any pre-deposit.
The ITAT held that assessments under Section 153A were invalid because no search warrant was issued in the assessee’s name. As the foundational assessment was void, the consequential Section 263 revision orders were also quashed.
The ITAT held that limitation under Section 153B must be determined based on the assessee’s own last panchanama despite a joint search warrant. As the assessments were completed beyond the prescribed period, they were quashed.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment orders were time-barred under Section 153 despite the DRP process. Both assessments were quashed after applying the limitation prescribed under the Act.
The ITAT held that limitation under Section 153B had to be computed from the searched person’s last panchanama, making the assessments time-barred. The assessment orders were therefore quashed.
The Karnataka High Court held that the requirement to deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand is not mandatory in every case. It quashed the stay rejection orders and directed disposal of the appeals without insisting on the pre-deposit.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained because the assessee produced complete documentary evidence supporting the share transactions. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to bring any cogent material to rebut the evidence or justify denial of Section 10(38) exemption.
