The Delhi ITAT held that electricity charges paid to statutory authorities in the ordinary course of business qualify as deductible expenditure under Section 37(1). The ruling reiterates that routine operational expenses incurred exclusively for business purposes are allowable deductions.
The ITAT Bangalore held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained without proper examination of bank statements, PAN details, confirmations, and other supporting evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the adequacy of sentence should be presented before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. It permitted withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to pursue the appropriate forum.
The NCLT Bengaluru dismissed a creditor’s claim submitted long after the prescribed timeline under the liquidation regulations. The Tribunal held that belated claims cannot reopen an advanced liquidation process.
Modine Thermal Systems Private Limited Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others (Uttarakhand High Court) The petitioner challenged an assessment order arising from proceedings initiated under the GST law. The dispute began when the respondent authority issued a show-cause notice in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 18.06.2024, seeking details and explanations regarding differences between the value of […]
The Court held that a delay of about 2200 days could not be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. It restored the Trial Court’s order rejecting the recall application due to prolonged and unexplained inaction.
The Court held that transferring assessment proceedings under Section 127 was justified to facilitate coordinated investigation involving interconnected entities. Recording reasons and providing an opportunity of hearing satisfied statutory requirements.
The Court held that transfer of assessment proceedings to Delhi was justified where connected cases had already been centralized for coordinated investigation. Administrative convenience and effective assessment were found to outweigh the petitioners’ objections.
The Hyderabad Bench emphasized that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely because an addition survives appellate scrutiny. The Revenue must establish deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Hyderabad ITAT observed that if a property is treated as stock-in-trade, the applicability of Section 43CA cannot be ignored. The ruling clarifies that deeming provisions under Section 50C and Section 43CA operate in different contexts.
