The ITAT upheld the deletion of a ₹305.49 crore penalty imposed on a bank, ruling that section 115JB (MAT) does not apply to banks under the Banking Regulation Act. The decision emphasizes that penalties linked to inapplicable provisions cannot be sustained.
The High Court ruled that entry tax applies to goods brought into Rajasthan and transferred out after six months. Rule 12(3) of RET Rules was applied in conjunction with Section 3 of the RET Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO found no fabricated or false documents for agricultural or tuition income. Since evidence existed but was incomplete, ITAT applied a 10% estimate and cut the addition drastically.
Delhi High Court remands ex-parte GST tax order after SCN was inaccessible and the proprietor’s illness prevented participation, emphasizing fair hearing before adjudication.
The Delhi High Court remands a GST order exceeding Rs. 7.5 crores due to denial of opportunity to be heard, granting the petitioner 30 days to file a reply to the SCN.
Cane Deveopment Council Rohana Kalan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2010–11 and 2011–12. Four appeals filed by two assessees were heard together due to similarity in facts, with one matter treated as the lead case. The assessee challenged the penalty […]
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a charitable trust’s exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied due to a technical mismatch in reporting new 12AB registration in the ITR. The substantive validity of the original 12A registration ensures continuity of exemption.
ITAT Jaipur held that the amount paid before due date of filing the return of income is not supposed to be disallowed under section 43B of the Income Tax Act even though the same was outstanding at the year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify the said aspect and pass appropriate order.
The Court held that although the GST demand covered multiple years, a single consolidated order permits one appeal. Pre-deposit and filing deadlines were extended.
Delhi High Court held that benefit of omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules sought to be extended to all the pending proceedings. Accordingly, proceedings deserves to be quashed. Thus, writ petitions are allowed.
