ITAT observed that non-deliberate delay caused by administrative difficulties should not bar access to justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the appeal was revived for merit-based adjudication.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
The dispute involved penalties on bank interest earned by a mutual entity prior to a change in law. The Tribunal held that a bona fide claim based on settled law cannot be treated as concealment, warranting deletion of penalties.
Delhi High Court held that denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit [ITC] due to non-filing of TRAN-1 not justified since the form was not filed in time due to technical glitch in the GST portal or transitional creases which were ironed out subsequently. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The ITAT held that cancellation of provisional registration merely for non-compliance with notices is unsustainable when lapses are not deliberate. The case was remanded to allow the applicant a fair opportunity to establish genuineness of activities.
The case examined whether assessments under Section 153C were valid without proper recording of statutory satisfaction. The Court remanded the matter, holding that jurisdiction must be decided before examining additions on merits.
The ITAT held that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed reassessment additions without independent examination of merits. The matter was remanded to grant the assessee a fair and effective opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest paid on account of delayed remittance of TDS cannot be treated as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order disallowing the same is upheld.
The High Court ruled that wilful default and pending recovery proceedings do not, by themselves, justify Look Out Circulars. Without criminal cases or proof of higher economic harm, restricting travel violates Article 21.
The case examined whether ex-parte assessment and appellate orders could stand without merit-based adjudication. The Tribunal held that failure to decide all grounds violates natural justice and ordered a fresh assessment.
