The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income earned by a securitisation trust created under the SARFAESI Act was taxable in the hands of Security Receipt holders because the trust qualified as a revocable trust under Sections 61 to 63 of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Indore held that Section 50C could not be invoked where the difference between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was only 1.19%. The Tribunal directed adoption of actual sale consideration as the full value for capital gains computation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that Form 10-IE filed along with the return could not be ignored merely because it was not filed within the due date under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to recompute tax under the new tax regime.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form No. 10DA was filed late due to technical glitches on the income tax portal. The Tribunal noted that the form was available with CPC before processing the return.
The ITAT Rajkot held that mere disallowance of expenditure during assessment proceedings does not automatically justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.
The Telangana High Court restored an income tax appeal after finding that notices were not sent to the consultant’s address mentioned in the appeal memo. The Court condoned a delay of 2913 days subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 as costs.
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer was given less than one effective working day to respond to additional queries. The Court held that such truncated timelines violated principles of natural justice.
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to examine the taxpayer’s request to treat an earlier court-ordered deposit as statutory pre-deposit for GST appeals. The issue arose due to changes in the GST portal architecture and appeal filing process.
The Bombay High Court held that State GST authorities could not initiate parallel proceedings and attach bank accounts when Central GST authorities were already investigating the same alleged ITC liability.
The Gujarat High Court held that a taxpayers selection of No for personal hearing in Form DRC-06 cannot override the mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court quashed the order passed without granting personal hearing.
