ITAT Bangalore held that expansion of scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining required prior approval as directed under CBDT Order No. F.No.225/402/2018/ITA.II dated 28.11.2018 is bad-in-law and hence order of AO is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai rules against Section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition, stating property valuation should be based on the agreement date, not registration, when payments are made by banking channels.
ITAT Chennai remands Murugan Doraisamy’s case, allowing re-evaluation of Section 54F deduction despite a delay in Capital Gains Account deposit.
ITAT Mumbai ruled against reopening assessments for penny stock LTCG without independent proof of accommodation entries, emphasizing genuine investor transactions.
Madras High Court held that delay of more than 17 years in adjudication of show cause proceeding without justifiable reasons is arbitrary and offending under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, proceedings are dropped and writ petition is allowed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside GST assessment order lacking officer’s signature and Document Identification Number (DIN), citing judicial precedents. Case remanded for fresh assessment.
ITAT Jaipur held that newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to Sec. 263 does not give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each order. Held that revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 not justified as order not erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue.
NCLAT Delhi held that once moratorium is declared, suspended management is also strictly prohibited from directly or indirectly deploying the funds of the Corporate Debtor unilaterally, without the authorisation of IRP, to clear any dues of any Financial Creditor or Operational Creditor.
CESTAT Kolkata held that recovery of cenvat credit alleging receipt of only paper invoice without actual receipt of inputs is not tenable due to incomplete investigation carried out on the part of the department. Also held that recovery is not sustainable since vendor is not made co-noticee.
Delhi High Court held that concluded and closed assessments cannot be reopened merely on suspicion. Accordingly, reopening of assessment is liable to be quashed since there is no tangible material that has a live nexus to reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.
