Court emphasizes procedural compliance in PAN usage, quashing notice and order issued under surrendered PAN and ensuring proper reassessment steps.
ITAT Cochin upheld that hospital payments to consulting doctors are professional fees under Section 194J, rejecting Revenue’s claim for salary TDS under Section 192.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court invalidated GST assessments where notices under Rule 142(1A) were not issued before assessment, emphasizing mandatory compliance prior to Oct 2020.
High Court quashes penalty computed under Section 129(1)(b) and directs reassessment under Section 129(1)(a) where goods were accompanied by valid documentation.
ITAT Mumbai invalidated the reassessment for AY 2008-09 because the notice under section 148 was issued after the statutory limitation period and contained a clerical error in the assessment year. The ruling underscores the necessity of strict procedural compliance for reassessment.
Madras High Court permits a delayed appeal against GST penalty order, provided 25% of disputed tax and interest on belated payment are deposited, emphasizing conditional relief.
The Court remanded the matter after finding that the taxpayer had not filed a reply or received a proper hearing before the order was passed. The adjudicating authority must reconsider the case after granting full opportunity.
The Court directed issuance of a new PAN after a duplicate allotment caused the petitioner’s financial record to be linked to another person’s loan defaults.
Madras High Court held that order of attachment of immovable property is required to be lifted as recovery officer is bound to give effect to order of higher authority. Accordingly, since entire arrears is already paid as per order passed by ITAT.
The Tribunal held that failure to file a return under section 139 or within the 148-notice deadline triggers Explanation 3, deeming concealment regardless of later tax payment. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained.
