Tribunal also observed that assessee’s change in classification from 25132030 to 25132090 after the notification indicated an intent to circumvent the export restriction. It further held that reliance on internal communications not mentioned in the show cause notice did not alter the fact that the export violated DGFT policy.
Department argued that the inspection certificates appeared forged and misleading. It was pointed out that the inspection timings shown were not physically possible, and the certificates were issued by an inspector whose link to the issuing agency was unclear.
ITAT instructed the AO to verify the TDS credit reflected in Form 26AS and grant the due credit in accordance with the law, again contingent on the assessee providing necessary details.
Bombay High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that income tax penalty notices must clearly specify grounds of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Calcutta High Court hears appeal on the validity of tax penalties under Section 271(1)(c), specifically if show-cause notices lacking specific grounds are invalid. The case involves the Thakur Prasad Sao Group.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, appeal allowed and reassessment quashed.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court rules on territorial jurisdiction for writ petitions, emphasizing the petitioner’s right to choose forum when concurrent jurisdiction exists and clarifying the application of forum conveniens based on where the cause of action arises.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposits as unexplained money cannot be sustained since the cash deposits is already recorded in books of accounts. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the claim for deduction under section 80G of the Act in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility [CSR] expenditure cannot be denied. Accordingly, deduction claimed is allowed and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Patna High Court held that passing of reassessment order under Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 beyond the time limit stipulated under section 26(3) of the Act is barred by limitation and accordingly, order is liable to be set aside.
