Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 without granting pre-decisional hearing and without providing independent or cogent reason in the order is not justifiable.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules Show Cause Notices lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) are invalid, citing CBIC circulars and Supreme Court precedents.
ITAT Pune held that entire cash deposits into the bank account cannot be treated as income, only profit element embedded in the same should be brought to tax. Thus, addition adopting 8% profit rate confirmed. Appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that proceedings u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act is bad in law since case falls within parameters of rule 112F r.w. third proviso to section 153A, however, no certificate was issued by investigating officer even when cash was found during election period.
ITAT Mumbai held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) due to availability of sufficient interest free funds for the purpose of making investment in exempt income yielding assets.
Gujarat High Court held that order cancelling GST registration for non-filing of GST return set aside since tax along with interest and penalty already paid and petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the provisions of GST Act and Rules.
Gujarat High Court held that Revisional authority ought to have taken into consideration that AO has to pass best judgement assessment order without granting an opportunity of being heard. Thus, matter remanded back to AO for de novo consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that the view taken by AO was a plausible view and the same cannot be subjected to revision under Section 263 of the Act merely for the reasons that PCIT does not agree with the same. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that pending tax in respect of vehicles purchased in auction is to be paid by the auction purchaser. Also held that there is no equity in taxation law and law would prevail in case of conflict between law and equity.
Calcutta High Court upholds quashing of an assessment order due to the Assessing Officer’s inherent lack of jurisdiction, citing CBDT instructions on nil income cases.
