Karnataka High Court held that passing of order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act beyond period of four year is barred by limitation. Accordingly, impugned order set aside.
Madras High Court condoned the delay in filing of an appeal before concerned authority as delay occurred in searching relevant documents to disprove the allegation of business transaction undertaken with a non-existent entity.
Madras High Court held that reopening the closed matter without assigning specific or new reasons is contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, order impugned is liable to be quashed.
The Sikkim High Court dismissed an appeal by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, upholding a refund claim by Alkem Laboratories Ltd. The court rejected the appellant’s attempt to reopen a settled matter and imposed a cost on the appellant, which was later waived.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO had not demonstrated any falsehood in the particulars provided by assessee. Mere making a claim that was not legally sustainable did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee.
Madras High Court directed Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the appeal within a period of 4 months and stay granted by the Court is directed to be extended till the disposal of appeal filed by the petitioner.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that it is mandatory for the AO to refer the valuation to the DVO if the assessee objects to the adoption of the stamp duty value and claims that the value adopted exceeds the fair market value.
Madras High Court held that Commissioner is duly empowered to designate proper officer for completion of assessment under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [TNGST Act].
CESTAT Chennai held that the mismatch in the SAD vs VAT / CST paid caused by different rates at which the tax is paid cannot be held against the refund applicant. Further, reasons for disbelieving the CA’s certificate also not clearly spelt out. Accordingly, rejection of refund claim unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-payment of an amount equal to the amount of advance tax unjustified as assessee has explained good and sufficient reason for not paying the amount.
