The Bombay High Court has directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to re-consider the addition made on account of bogus purchases in the case of PCIT vs. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia. The court found that the ITAT had dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and allowed the assessee’s appeal based on incomplete investigation and failure to consider relevant documents and evidence.
Court dismissed petitioner’s argument that a show cause notice was invalid due to parallel investigations, noting the investigations concerned a different individual.
Overview and analysis of the ITAT Bangalore’s decision to direct re-adjudication due to the assessee’s unfamiliarity with the ITBA portal in the Krishnan Sivaprasad vs ITO case.
In-depth analysis of the recent Delhi High Court judgement in PCLT Vs Gopal Kumar Goyal, leading to a quashed 300% penalty imposed by the AO due to lack of clear indication on violation of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In MMTC Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Orissa High Court asserts that the writ court cannot decide disputed facts about tax dues payments, directing the petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer.
In the case of Vikash Marda Vs Union Of India, the Calcutta High Court instructs CIT(A) to expedite pending appeals concerning assessments made under the Black Money Act.
Held that the goods were brought in the factory premises without having proper invoices/documents with intent to clear them clandestinely. Accordingly, confiscation and the redemption fine as well as the penalty imposed u/s. 11 AC of Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is absolutely justified.
In a recent case, Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs C.c.e. Jaipur, the Rajasthan High Court has decided that welding electrodes used for maintenance and repair are inputs and not part of the manufacturing process.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain tax inadvertently paid by the wife needs to be refunded with interest and the same needs to be recovered from the assessee as the same transaction cannot be charged to tax twice.
Meghalaya High Court held that extended period of limitation as per proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 not invocable as there was no element of deceit or intention on the part of the assessee to evade duty.
