ITAT Delhi held that interest awarded under Section 28 is an accretion to compensation and cannot be taxed as income from other sources. The appeal was allowed following Supreme Court precedent.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is not sustainable in absence of cogent, tangible or corroborative evidence linking connection of appellant in fraudulent export by forming a syndicate. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and penalty is set aside.
NCLAT held that invoices with default dates beyond the Section 10A period cannot be barred under the COVID suspension provision. The ₹2.36 crore claim was restored for fresh consideration.
NCLAT Delhi held that demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is a valid notice of invocation of personal guarantee for the Insolvency proceeding. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Setting aside the assessment, the Court held that non-selection of a portal option cannot deprive an assessee of oral hearing. Denial of such opportunity amounted to violation of natural justice.
The Bombay High Court set aside a consolidated GST show cause notice covering five financial years, holding that Section 74 mandates year-wise assessment and limitation. The ruling clarifies that tax demands must strictly follow the statutory financial year structure.
ITAT Delhi held that recording a single satisfaction note for multiple assessment years violates Section 153C requirements. As no year-specific incriminating material was identified, the assessments were quashed along with the related penalty.
Tribunal held that rejection of the Project Completion Method was invalid as the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction under section 145(3). Income was directed to be recomputed under the method consistently followed by the assessee.
Tribunal held that application software licences with limited duration and no ownership rights are revenue expenditure. It deleted the disallowance and ruled that remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an unsigned Excel sheet found during survey, without corroborative evidence, cannot justify addition for alleged cash payments.
