Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that mere disallowance or change in head of income does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had: Shown rental income partly as rent and partly as hire charges (under business income) Claimed Section […]
The Court granted interim relief in a petition challenging GST under RCM on development rights. It recognized the issue as already under judicial scrutiny in a similar case.
The Court granted interim relief as the issue matched an earlier pending case. It ensured consistency in judicial approach and protected the taxpayer.
ITAT Bangalore upholds restricting TP adjustment only to AE transactions, dismissing Revenues appeal. Confirms capacity, working capital adjustments and consistency in forex/provision treatment.
The issue was rejection of an appeal filed beyond the condonable period under GST law. The Court allowed reconsideration due to a minor nine-day delay supported by valid reasons.
The Tribunal held that differential CVD cannot be demanded without evidence linking the importer to MRP alteration. Allegations based on assumptions and third-party actions were rejected.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable where service tax and interest are paid before issuance of notice. Absence of fraud or suppression entitled the assessee to relief.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty was quashed due to lack of clarity and inconsistency.
The issue was denial of credit due to post-amendment invoicing. The Tribunal held that credit is admissible since services were completed before the cut-off date.
**SEO Description:** Supreme Court holds that an appeal filed by a suspended director in the name of the corporate debtor after admission of CIRP is not maintainable. It rules that such a fundamentally incompetent appeal cannot be cured or converted after expiry of limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC, and sets aside NCLAT’s contrary approach.
