Madras High Court held that issuance of two different orders for same Assessment Year is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, order set aside and matter remanded back.
Gauhati High Court held that Explanation inserted to section 14A vide the Finance Act, 2022 is applicable prospectively and order holding that the said insertion is clarificatory and hence retrospective in nature is erroneous.
Delhi High Court held that fee in respect of credit card being issued by foreign branches would not be taxable in India since amount payable by those card holders would clearly be debt incurred outside India.
ITAT Bangalore held that granting an opportunity to cross examine essential when addition is made on the basis of 3rd party statements. Non-granting any opportunity of cross examination violates the principle of natural which vitiates the validity of addition.
ITAT Bangalore deleted addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money after examining the cash withdrawn and cash deposit amounts, since cash withdrawn is more than cash deposit.
ITAT Chennai held that cash received under unregistered will accepted as will furnished by the assessee not established as fabricated one by the department and there is no requirement in law to get the will registered.
Calcutta High Court directed respondent to file affidavit to decide validity of the instruction no. CBIC-240137/14/2022- Service Tax dated 28.10.2022 with respect to pre-deposit payment mode.
CESTAT Bangalore held that differential duty demand u/s. 28(4) of the Customs Act sustainable as investigation clearly established that product ‘Brush Cutter’ mis-declared and cleared as ‘Power Operated Reapers’.
PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order and compute correct taxable income by giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Being aggrieved against the revision order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
Delhi High Court held that formation of opinion on the basis of material is necessary for exercising power of provisional attachment under section 83(1) of the CGST Act. Provisional attachment justified as exercise of estimating value of GST conducted.
