Ramachandra Reddy Vs DCIT: The Karnataka High Court quashes reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional AOs, holding that after the March 29, 2022 notification, all such proceedings must be conducted via the mandatory faceless regime under Section 151A.
ITAT Chandigarh held that additional evidences filed by the assessee deserves to be admitted inspite of casual and callous approach of assessee since the ultimate object of adjudication is to do substantial justice. However, cost of Rs. 3,000/- imposed.
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) in Delhi granted an advance ruling to Samsung Display Noida Pvt. Ltd., affirming that its imported inputs for manufacturing OLED displays for laptops and tablets are eligible for a customs duty exemption. The decision relied on the “part of a part is a part of the whole” principle and a recent CBIC clarification.
ITAT Amritsar held that the statements recorded behind the back of the assessee cannot be used for making addition unless and an opportunity to cross examine the witness is allowed. Accordingly, addition towards bogus purchases duly restricted to 1.2%.
Delhi High Court held that AO is required to bring on record cogent evidence to justify the invocation of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act to deny exemption. Notably, material collected from the internet cannot be termed as corroborative piece of evidence. Accordingly, writ of revenue dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act empowers the Tribunal to rectify glaring error. Thus, earlier order which ignored binding precedents can be rectified. Writ disposed of accordingly.
NCLAT Delhi held that suspended directors, who invested about 5.5 crores and having 51% equity in Corporate Debtor, cannot claim that they were not aware about initiation of CIRP. Accordingly, observation of Adjudicating Authority that Suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor were not cooperating with the IRP/RP/Liquidator was justifiable.
Bombay High Court held that having regard to the provisions of Section 55(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal, acting as an Appellate Authority, certainly had powers to modify the order of part payment passed in First Appeal while hearing the Second Appeal.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty cannot be imposed merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s. 112(a) of the Customs Act set aside in absence of corroborative evidence proving appellant’s role in mis-declaration/ over-invoicing.
Madras High Court held that petitioner failed to reply since GST show cause notice was only uploaded on the GST portal and petitioner was unaware about the same. Accordingly, impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to respondent for fresh consideration.
