ITAT Delhi sets aside search assessment in Amit Gupta & Sons HUF case, citing lack of proper approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that refund claims must clearly specify the notification and legal provision under which they are sought. Procedural lapses can lead to denial.
ITAT Agra restores penalty appeal in Devendra Kumar Dubey Vs ITO for reassessment by CIT(A). Case highlights concealment penalty of ₹34,803 under Section 271(1)(c).
Madras High Court held that Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be extended to cases where default continued beyond moratorium period. Hence, application under section 7 for initiation of CIRP acceptable.
ITAT Delhi held that interest on enhanced compensation under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not exempt u/s. 10(37). Such interest is exigible to tax u/s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145B(1). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that delay in filing of income tax returns results into imposition of penalty and prosecution. Payment of penalty for delay in filing return doesn’t exonerate petitioner from being prosecuted.
Karnataka High Court held that in case of service of retreading tyres, service tax is payable only with respect to the service component under the Finance Act. Service tax is not payable on the entire gross value. Hence, petition partly allowed.
Madras High Court directed granting of one final opportunity of being heard as demanded by assessee on payment of 10% of the disputed taxes under GST. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
Kerala High Court held that issuance of notice for imposition of penalty under section 271B for failure to furnish audit report after more than four years of completion of assessment is barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Petitioner runs a hotel and registered under GST. It was issued a notice in GST ASMT-10 intimating certain discrepancies which stated that the petitioner had availed ITC which was not available to him as per Section 17(5) of the RGST.
