The Tribunal ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.
NCLT Kochi held that delay in filing bankruptcy application u/s. 123 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 condoned considering that compliance with Section 121(2) should be considered directory in nature. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that section 50 does not convert a long-term capital asset to a short-term capital asset, then the rate of tax is applicable for the transfer of a long-term capital asset has to be in accordance with section 112. The deeming fiction of section 50 cannot be imported under section 112.
Allahabad High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without issuing a mandatory notice in Form REG-17, even in cases of voluntary surrender, setting aside cancellation and appeal orders.
CESTAT Allahabad set aside a penalty imposed on a customs officer, holding that statements recorded under duress and without corroboration cannot be relied upon for conviction.
Gujarat High Court held that reimbursement of the service of the cost of repairing and restoration of the roads to AMC cannot be considered as a supply of service by the AMC so as to fasten the liability of the GST on reverse charge basis.
ITAT ruled that the CIT (Exemption) had no power to cancel registration under Section 12AB(4) for violations that occurred before April 2022, rendering the action void.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
ITAT ruled that additions based on property purchase were invalid as the lower authorities ignored documented sources of funds, confirming that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68.
