CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act can duly be imposed for mis-declaration in imports. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 imposed u/s. 114AA is modest since the same doesn’t exceed five time the value of goods.
The ITAT instantly dismissed the Revenues appeal because it only challenged the merits of additions, not the CIT(A)s core finding that the reassessment notice was time-barred. When the foundation of the reassessment is quashed and that ruling isnt appealed, all subsequent additions automatically collapse.
ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act expiry of specified period of limitation is time barred and hence invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed and notice is quashed.
The Supreme Court restored just compensation for the family of a deceased engineer, ruling that for MACT claims, income must include all emoluments and allowances, not just basic pay and DA, correcting the High Courts exclusion. The ruling mandates calculating income tax based on actual statutory slabs, rejecting arbitrary flat deductions, and applying the mandatory 50% future prospects for permanent employees under 40.
The ITAT deleted a Rs.1.30 crore addition, ruling that the reassessment was invalid because the reason for reopening (payments made by the assessee) was entirely different from the reason for the final addition (loan received by the assessee). The Tribunal held that an addition made on a new, unrecorded reason renders the reassessment proceedings unsustainable in law.
ITAT Kolkata held that passing of reassessment order without issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and not jurisdictional. Accordingly, order quashed and addition is deleted.
Tax treatment of a foreign exchange fluctuation depended entirely on the nature of the underlying asset or liability. Gains or losses on capital items (like a long-term investment or loan) were not typically recognized for tax purposes until the asset was actually sold or the loan was repaid.
Provision for customer loyalty points, computed on a scientific and consistent basis, constituted a present and ascertained liability deductible under Section 37(1). Disallowance u/s 14A was deleted since no exempt income was earned during the year.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
