Mumbai ITAT held that discounts offered on gift cards and gift vouchers became an actual expenditure when the instruments were sold and could not be treated as contingent liability. The Tribunal allowed the deduction after noting that unutilised amounts were later offered to tax.
Gujarat High Court observed that additions in bogus purchase cases should be confined to the income component embedded in such transactions rather than the entire purchase amount.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued after the amended limitation period under Section 149 were without jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the extended ten-year period could not apply without material showing escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakh.
The Tribunal held that the facts relating to delayed revised return in Shriram Investments were distinguishable and therefore did not bar consideration of the assessee’s agricultural land exemption claim.
The Court ruled that consistency in tax litigation presupposes an informed and deliberate decision by authorities. Mere failure to raise an issue in one year due to oversight does not bar future appeals.
Chennai ITAT held that variations between Insight Portal data and GSTR-2A could not automatically establish unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained without evidence of actual unrecorded expenditure.
Delhi CESTAT held that an importer who accepted enhanced valuation and paid duty without protest could not later challenge the assessment in appeal. The Tribunal found the acceptance of US $2.30 per kg valuation to be unconditional.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge against the Delhi High Court ruling on duty drawback accrual, MODVAT credit treatment, and raw material consumption additions. The HC had largely ruled in favour of the assessee.
The Delhi High Court held that duty drawback accrues only upon passing of the order by the competent authority and not merely in the year of export.
The Tribunal held that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified in a case involving deemed rental income addition. It observed that the legal position on the issue was debatable during the relevant assessment year.
