Pune ITAT significantly reduced Section 14A disallowance, ruling that administrative expenses relating to a proprietary concern with no investments must be excluded from computation. ITAT applied a reasonable estimate of Rs.10 lakh after finding expenses like depreciation and property tax had no nexus with earning exempt income.
The High Court set aside the ex-parte assessment and appeal order, granting the partnership firm another opportunity to respond to the Section 148 notice. The ruling accepts the taxpayer’s non-response as due to bona fide, unavoidable circumstances.
Karnataka High Court set aside the ex-parte reassessment (u/s 147 and 144) because all preceding notices (including 148A) were mailed to taxpayer’s outdated address. HC found merit in bona fide non-receipt due to address change and remanded matter for fresh consideration.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment (u/s 147 and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued notices, violating the Section 151A mandate for faceless reassessment. The ruling reinforces that all orders based on notices issued outside the scheme’s scope are void and stand quashed.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment notices (u/s 148A and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued them, violating the mandate of Section 151A under the faceless scheme. The ruling confirms that notices issued outside the centralized, faceless framework are invalid and without authority.
CAAR Mumbai held that unvulcanised compound rubber made of natural rubber, carbon black, and stearic acid is classifiable under Heading 4005 1000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that customized heat sinks used in PCBAs of data center switches and uplink cards are classifiable under 8517 79 90 as parts of communication apparatus.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that customized metal chassis, covers, and heatsinks used in data center switches are classifiable under 8517 79 90 as parts of communication apparatus and eligible for Nil customs duty under Notification No. 57/2017-Customs.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing of Form No. 10 was condoned since activities of trust are genuine and denial of benefit of accumulation u/s. 11(2) due to delay in Form No. 10 would cause genuine hardship.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings, including Section 148A and consequential penalty orders, ruling they were initiated without jurisdiction. The court found that the jurisdictional AO issued notices outside the scope of Section 151A, violating the CBDT’s faceless scheme.
