Assessing Officer acknowledged an inadvertent error in adding ₹46 lakh to the taxpayer’s income. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh assessment and directed consideration of all evidence, including the builder’s certificate.
The appellant claimed to be only a commission agent, but witness statements and records showed involvement in procurement, logistics, documentation, and receipt of export proceeds. The Tribunal held that these facts established participation in the export scheme and justified penalty.
ITAT sustained the adoption of fair market value under Section 50C after finding that seized cash represented on-money from property transactions. The Tribunal upheld the valuation determined through the DVO process.
CESTAT Chennai held that concessional CVD on imported cement cannot be denied merely because 50 kg bags carried printed RSP. The Tribunal ruled that the department must establish actual retail sale or misuse of the exemption.
ITAT Chennai condoned a 311-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal held that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits with supporting documents.
ITAT Chennai held that indexation on construction cost cannot be denied when details of the building are already contained in the registered sale deed and its annexure. The Tribunal directed recomputation of capital gains after allowing indexed construction cost.
The Kerala High Court remanded the matter after finding that the ITAT failed to expressly adjudicate the challenge to the validity of approval under Section 153D. The ruling underscores the need for tribunals to address every material issue raised before them.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the order rejecting revocation of GST registration because documents submitted by the taxpayer were not considered. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after a personal hearing.
The Bombay High Court held that a corporate guarantee cannot be equated with a bank guarantee and upheld a 0.5% guarantee commission rate. The Court rejected the Revenue’s challenge to the 3% rate adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer.
The Karnataka High Court condoned the delay in filing appeals after noting that the issue relating to contributions under Section 57(2A) of the KCS Act had remained unresolved for over a decade. The Court also directed the CIT (Appeals) to decide the remanded matter within four months.
