The Tribunal emphasized 33%–40% value addition at the UTK unit and scientific assembly processes to conclude that real manufacturing took place. It directed deletion of disallowances made across five assessment years.
Calcutta High Court held that violation of principles of natural justice and erroneous order cannot be reason for bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal under section 76 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Value Added Tax Regulation, 2017. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
elying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court upheld ITAT’s finding that reopening based on reappraisal of existing records is invalid. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The High Court set aside an ex parte GST order after finding lack of proper service and denial of hearing. It held that mandatory opportunity under Section 75 must be granted before adverse determination.
The Court held that Section 73 does not prohibit issuance of multiple show cause notices for the same tax period when they address different discrepancies. Only overlapping demands on identical facts are impermissible.
The ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under Section 270A for alleged underreporting and misreporting of income could not survive once the Karnataka High Court condoned the delay in filing the return and restored the assessee’s eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA.
The ITAT Bangalore held that the entire cost of construction claimed by the assessee while computing capital gains on sale of property could not be outrightly disallowed merely due to lack of complete supporting documents.
The ITAT Bangalore held that reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on an incorrect assumption that the assessee had claimed bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions.
ITAT Bangalore quashed Sec.263 revision, holding AO had examined Model House and ₹9.68 cr expenses in detail; mere change of opinion cannot justify revision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid under Section 149. As a result, the entire reassessment based on alleged accommodation entries was quashed as void ab initio.
