CESTAT Delhi quashes orders passed after one year of SCN issuance in Kopertek Metals Pvt Ltd vs CGST Commissioner, emphasizing statutory adjudication timelines.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment unsustainable since assessee had explained the source of investment in FDs as being from his FD/OD account.
Telangana High Court held that the surrender of the rights results in impairment of profit making apparatus of the company and thus amount received under agreement for surrender of rights in capital assets is capital receipt. Accordingly, the appeal by revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai rules no addition can be made for differences between GST returns and ITR if reconciled. Assessee followed project completion method for accounting.
Manish Manohardas Asrani Vs ITO Int Tax Ward (ITAT Mumbai) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, ruled in favor of the assessee, Manish Manohardas Asrani, quashing a penalty of ₹44,90,048 levied under Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the charge—whether it pertained […]
Madras High Court held that petitioner being unaware of initiation of proceedings are directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax and submit objections by treating impugned assessment order as show cause notice.
ITAT Kolkata held that treating purchases from concern as bogus merely because for another year purchases from the said concern were treated by AO as bogus is not justified since in relevant year AO duly treated the purchases as genuine.
The appellant are that the assessee being a public charitable Trust engaged in running an educational institution in the name of Batanagar Institute of Engineering, management and Science.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that delay of three years in approaching Court without explaining sufficient cause for the delay is not justifiable. Also held that mere filing of representation is not sufficient cause to explain the delay. Thus, petition dismissed.
AO observed that there was substantial undisclosed income, as the assessee admitted to unaccounted business income amounting to Rs.3,50,04,000/- during the search proceedings but did not file a return for the assessment year 2014-15.
