Bombay High Court ruling establishes lender bank’s priority over Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (GST) in SARFAESI Act enforcement, securing marketable title. Read the judgment.
Detailed analysis of the appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act by the ITAT Delhi in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Goyal vs ITO, including the reasons for the penalty dismissal.
In the Satishbhai Kadvabhai Sarvaiya Vs ITO case, ITAT Rajkot rules that during demonetization, deposits don’t warrant addition under U/s 69A if adequately explained.
ITAT Chennai observed that differences in valuation opinions are common, and the assessee’s claim based on an approved valuer’s report cannot be deemed as concealment of income. Citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the ITAT ruled that an incorrect claim in law does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) Contractors are entitled to reimbursement of the GST impact also on indirect transactions on which GST was imposed.
HC emphasized that if respondent intended to modify tax proposal, a fresh show cause notice should have been issued instead of deviating from original basis without proper notice.
Analysis of N.R. Patel & Co. Vs Assistant Commissioner case by Kerala High Court. Court rules on assessment/refund order merit under KGST Act. Full judgment.
Explore how the Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces strict adherence to refund timelines under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act in the case of Commissioner vs FEMC Pratibha JV.
Orissa High Court quashes reassessment order, ruling it cannot be based merely on tax evasion or audit reports, stressing the need for independent assessment.
ITAT observed that the disallowance of expenses by the AO was on an estimate and ad hoc basis due to the absence of supporting evidence, rather than evidence of concealment of income. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT emphasized that disallowance based on the magnitude of expenses or missing vouchers is insufficient to justify a penalty, especially without evidence of mala fide intent.
