High Court directed authorities to examine claims relating to additional road work, carriage charges, GST differential, and deductions from running bills. The Court refrained from deciding the merits and ordered consideration of pending representations.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. Proper verification and rebuttal of evidence are necessary before sustaining additions under Section 69A.
ITAT Bangalore dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for delayed filing. The Tribunal ruled that routine official workload could not justify condonation of delay.
Bombay High Court observed that payments made while search proceedings are continuing may not automatically qualify as voluntary deposits. Court granted tax authorities an opportunity to take corrective steps if refund entitlement exists.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should not be decided before disposal of the related quantum appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Chennai held that an exporter cannot be taxed under reverse charge for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds where no service recipient relationship was established with the foreign bank.
The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey number error. It directed deletion of the duplicate addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Delhi High Court held that material recovered during a search can validly form the basis of reassessment proceedings even if the search is later alleged to be illegal. The Court ruled that proceedings initiated on the basis of such material do not automatically become void.
The Kerala High Court held that delay condonation applications under Section 119(2)(b) must comply with the revised five-year limitation prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Court ruled that authorities cannot entertain applications filed beyond the revised period.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CPC cannot suo motu reclassify an apartment owners association as a co-operative society while processing returns under Section 143(1). The Tribunal deleted the Rs. 97,690 demand after finding the adjustment beyond the scope of prima facie processing.
