The issue was whether a taxpayer could seek revocation after missing the prescribed timeline due to portal restrictions. The Court allowed manual filing and directed authorities to consider the application on merits.
The issue was mismatch between Section 74 mentioned in summary and penalty imposed under Section 73. The Court allowed rectification by approaching the proper officer without examining merits.
The issue was whether tax demand can exceed the amount and scope mentioned in the show cause notice. The Court held that such excess demand violates Section 75(7) and directed rectification through proper procedure.
The court refused to entertain a constitutional challenge raised to bypass limitation. It allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation subject to conditions.
The court declined to examine the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) in absence of clear factual basis. It held that disputed facts must be examined through statutory appellate remedies.
The court addressed denial of input tax credit due to mismatch with GSTR-2A and missing invoices. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with supporting documents before the proper officer.
Bombay High Court held that application for NIL withholding tax certificate rightly rejected since matter of taxability of fees for technical services [FTS] rendered from China for previous assessment years is already pending before ITAT. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves & Surplus in the Balance Sheet and the same has to be routed through the Profit & Loss Account to arrive at the correct book profits u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that municipal tax does not constitute rent hence default thereon cannot be reason for eviction. Further, decree of eviction set aside since reasonable requirement for the purpose of building or rebuilding not proved.
The High Court held that once the assessee failed to explain the source, addition was justified only to the extent of cash actually seized. It ruled that the AO cannot arbitrarily add a higher amount than the proven seized sum.
