The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the appeal could not be dismissed in limine. CIT(A) must issue a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6).
CESTAT Allahabad held that demand made in respect of works contract services provide to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is not sustainable since the services are provided to Government Authority and the same are exempted in terms of Notification 25/2012-ST.
The Tribunal condoned a 28-day delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The assessee had failed to comply with notices and did not provide evidence for deductions. All additions made by the Assessing Officer, including capital gains and salary income, were upheld.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of claim in CIRP of corporate debtor justified since Appellants failed to establish the crucial aspect of transfer of monies to the bank account of Corporate Debtor for purchase of flats.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s turnover before applying corporate tax. If turnover for FY 2018-19 is under ₹400 crore, the tax rate must be computed at 25% instead of 30%.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2010-11, noting that AO failed to verify agricultural income and bank deposits properly. CIT(A) also overlooked key evidence. The case is remitted for fresh assessment to ensure proper scrutiny.
The Tribunal quashed penalties for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, holding that show-cause notices must clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c). Vague notices violating natural justice cannot sustain penalties. This reinforces the strict requirement for specificity in penalty proceedings.
Tribunal held that CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal despite Supreme Court–mandated limitation extensions. COVID-19–related delays must be liberally condoned when reasonable cause is shown.
The Tribunal clarified two key issues: depreciation on assets received in demerger and PF/ESI contribution disallowances. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed for AY 2017-18, while the assessee’s appeal for AY 2024-25 was partly allowed. This decision reinforces consistency in asset-related claims and practical application of Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal held that audited separate books proved correct profits, making the AO’s proportionate estimation unsustainable. 80P deduction cannot be reduced when business-wise accounts are properly maintained.
