The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued more than three years after the Department became aware of the facts was time-barred. The extended period of limitation was found to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that once an earlier show cause notice had been issued on the same issue, the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation again. The service tax demand and related liabilities were set aside.
The ITAT Delhi held that an interest-bearing loan can still be taxed as deemed dividend where all statutory conditions under Section 2(22)(e) are satisfied. Repayment of the loan did not alter its tax treatment.
The Madras High Court held that a show cause notice and assessment order issued in the name of a deceased proprietor are void. The order was quashed, with liberty granted to proceed against legal heirs according to law.
The Court granted bail after noting that the principal material against the applicants consisted of confessional statements and statements of co-accused persons. Charge sheets had already been filed in the cases.
The Karnataka High Court directed that a fresh refund application be treated as filed on the date of the original application. The period spent addressing repeated deficiency memos was excluded for limitation purposes.
The ITAT held that a transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127(2) is invalid if the assessee is not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As a result, notices issued by the transferee officers lacked legal validity and the assessment was quashed.
ITAT Surat held that the entire investment amount could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished supporting records relating to agricultural income and other sources. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed amount and granted substantial relief.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the property could not have been transferred without compensating the occupants. The related payments were therefore held deductible from the sale consideration for capital gains purposes.
The ITAT held that penalty for misreporting of income cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based merely on estimation of profit. Estimated additions do not establish deliberate concealment or misreporting.
