ITAT Chennai ruled to correct an arithmetical error made during scrutiny assessment, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the full Section 10AA deduction.
Bombay High Court held that show cause notice should be adjudicated within a reasonable time and there should not be an egregious, unjustified and unexplained inordinate delay.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of manufacturing of tugs and barges cannot be classified as supply of manpower and hence cannot be taxed under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service.
Kerala High Court held that clarification order accepts classification of Clohex and Clohex Plus as medicament, based on the fact that they were manufactured under a drug licence. However, there is no reason discernible from clarification order as to why Senquel-AD Mouthwash which is presented in a similar form cannot also be classified as a medicament.
Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and directed department not to act in furtherance of order passed by appellate authority till the time appellate tribunal in term of Section 109 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is constituted.
ITAT Delhi held that law does not confer any power on the Assessing Officer to either withdraw or modify or substitute one assessment order passed by him earlier with another assessment order subsequently.
Patna High Court held that as Petitioner failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding huge fixed assets and cash available with him, bail application of the Petitioner is rejected.
Finance Act, 2017 removed clause (i) of section 92BA, effectively nullifying any decisions made by the Assessing Officer under this section. Reference to the TPO under section 92CA also becomes invalid
ITAT rules that an assessee isn’t responsible for a non-responsive supplier when purchases were made in earlier years. Lack of supplier’s response to a section 133(6) notice doesn’t invalidate the transaction.
ITAT Chennai rules in the case of Kannappan Vijayalakshmi vs ITO, stating that the mere non-acceptance of a claim by the assessee doesn’t mean automatic penalty under section 270A(9)(a). Explore the detailed analysis and implications.
