The Tribunal held that profit estimation cannot rest on conjectures or lump-sum allegations. In absence of identified bogus purchases or factual basis, the entire addition was deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that a purchase-return mismatch does not constitute misreporting under section 270A(9). Immunity under section 270AA was granted, quashing the ₹10.69 lakh penalty.
Calcutta High Court held that West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation’s [WBIDC] demand for transfer fee in relation to leasehold lands acquired via resolution process. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
ACC Limited Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) Patna High Court held that packing materials namely gunny bags and HDPE bags are integral part of cement sales hence cannot be charged separately. Consolidated sales tax rate of 11% is applicable. Accordingly, appeals stand dismissed. Facts- The appellant, M/s ACC Limited, is a company incorporated under […]
Karnataka High Court held that mere change in route, without intention to evade tax, cannot attract penalty under section 129 of the KGST Act. Accordingly, order passed is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and hence petition is allowed.
Indian City Properties Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 263 on the proposal of the AO is not sustainable under the Act, as the PCIT failed to independently apply his mind and record satisfaction of the twin conditions. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B after […]
The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot survive without recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer during pending assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that non-compliance with the faceless reassessment scheme strikes at jurisdiction itself. JAO-issued notices post-notification were held legally unsustainable.
Delhi High Court held that strict adherence to the procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Rules cannot be insisted, as the sale of the secured asset was undertaken with the unequivocal consent of the borrowers. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that intention to defraud creditors of Corporate Debtor was based on documentary evidence, accordingly, all the ingredients under section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are attracted. Thus, appeal lacks merits and hence dismissed.
