The application was dismissed because the tax liability had already been determined and challenged before the High Court. The Authority ruled that parallel proceedings are not permissible.
The Authority held that contribution of leasehold land and constructed property to an LLP is not a sale of immovable property. It constitutes a supply of service as consideration exists in the form of profit-sharing rights.
The Authority held that processing activities like crushing and sizing do not create a new product with distinct characteristics. Since the mineral remains unchanged, the activity does not qualify as manufacture.
ITAT held that reassessment initiated with approval from the wrong authority is invalid when issued beyond three years. The entire proceedings were quashed. The key takeaway is that proper sanction under Section 151 is mandatory.
The Authority dismissed the Departments appeal, confirming that geomembranes are textile products. The ruling relied on established judicial precedent and the product’s manufacturing process involving weaving.
ITAT held that estimating profit at 8% without considering records was excessive. It reduced the rate to 3% based on business realities. The key takeaway is that estimation must be reasonable and evidence-based.
ITAT rejected condonation of a 963-day delay as the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for the reasons stated. The Tribunal held that mere claims without proof cannot justify delay.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 615 days after finding that the assessee was actively pursuing rectification remedies under Section 154. It held that such bona fide conduct constitutes sufficient cause and delay cannot be treated as negligence.
ITAT held that an unexplained delay of over 11 years cannot be condoned without valid reasons. The appeal was dismissed as no sufficient cause was proved.
The case examined whether sanction by JCIT was valid for reassessment beyond four years. The court held that such approval was invalid, making the notices unsustainable.
