It is mainly contested that invocation of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act as there was no suppression of facts by the petitioners.
ITAT Surat held that each and every addition cannot be a basis for levying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. There has to be deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealed income for levy of penalty.
The appellants herein is a Customs Broker (CB). In pursuance of specific intelligence regarding customs duty evasion in import consignment CFS was put on hold and further investigation ware carried out.
Kerala High Court held that rejection of the application for refund on the ground that the second application filed by the petitioner was beyond the time specified in sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be sustained in law.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed differs from the stamp value adopted by the officer, AO has to adopt the procedures contemplated u/s. 50C of the Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessee satisfactorily explained non-production of documents before lower authorities. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed is set aside and matter is remanded back to AO for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that there is no relation of disallowance u/s. 14A while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB. Thus, lower authorities were not correct in adding notional expenditure as computed u/s. 14A and increasing the book profit by that sum u/s. 115JB.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A of the Act was not a valid notice for the reason that the AO did not specify the satisfaction as to whether assessee had either ‘under reported the income or ‘misreported the income’.
Madras High Court held that as requested by the petitioner, an opportunity of heard will be granted on payment of deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount since petitioner failed to respond to notice in DRC-01.
Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside VAT Tribunal’s order on inter-state sales tax dispute of Quantum Engineers, remands case for reassessment.
