CESTAT Chandigarh held that statements relied upon against assessees cannot be used without following the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The matters were remanded after finding violation of principles of natural justice.
The Mumbai ITAT held that donations made as part of CSR expenditure can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G if statutory conditions are satisfied. The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under Section 37 does not prohibit relief under Chapter VI-A.
The Court ruled that although the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to levy penalty, initiation of proceedings still requires satisfaction recorded during assessment proceedings. Absence of such satisfaction rendered the penalty invalid.
The Calcutta High Court held that filing an audit report in Form 10BB instead of Form 10B was a procedural lapse that could not defeat substantive exemption rights under Section 12A. The Court directed the authority to decide the condonation application within a specified timeline.
The Calcutta High Court held that a rectification order under Section 154 passed after the statutory limitation period was without jurisdiction. The Court consequently quashed the order and related recovery proceedings.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a mismatch in loan repayment figures arising from an unpresented cheque could not automatically justify addition under Section 68. The Tribunal directed limited verification of subsequent payment before deciding the taxability issue conclusively.
The Tribunal held that differences between customs assessable value and invoice value cannot automatically justify additions under Section 69C. The ruling clarifies that actual unexplained expenditure must first be proved by the Revenue.
The Bangalore ITAT held that revision proceedings under Section 264 are intended to provide relief to taxpayers and cannot worsen their position. The Tribunal struck down an enhanced addition made after remand proceedings during demonetisation cash deposit verification.
PCIT had erroneously mixed up the scope of renewal proceedings with cancellation proceedings under Section 12AB(4). Further, Settlement Commission itself had accepted the charitable nature and genuineness of the assessee’s activities and PCIT (Central) was found to lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of renewal/cancellation of registration.
The Bangalore ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot estimate additional profit merely due to a fall in net profit ratio when books of account are not rejected. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion over self-made vouchers without concrete evidence cannot justify arbitrary additions.
