ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the AO failed to record any allegation of the assessee’s failure to disclose material facts. The ruling reaffirms that reopening beyond four years requires strict compliance with the proviso to Section 147.
The Court ruled that blocking ITC beyond available credit under Rule 86A is invalid, directing authorities to remove negative blocking from the taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger.
Delhi HC held that a show cause notice issued for excess ITC was within the statutory three-month period prior to the outer limit under Section 73. The SCN and order are not time-barred.
CESTAT Mumbai held that MIMO-based Wi-Fi extenders qualify for exemption under customs notification, clarifying that exclusion applies only to products combining MIMO and LTE technologies.
The Gujarat AAR ruled that liquidated damages paid for contract breaches in an electric bus project do not constitute a supply and are not subject to GST.
Gujarat AAR held that Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed on GST paid for long-term industrial land leases used for factory construction, citing Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act. The ruling confirms that such credits remain blocked even before or after construction.
ITAT Mumbai held that benefit under section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for inadvertent filing of Form 10-IB in place of Form 10-IC since the same is technical lapse. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is sustained and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since AO took one of the possible views while allowing claim of deduction under section 54F. Accordingly, order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
Dismissing borrower’s petition, High Court held that a 15-day gap between publication and auction meets statutory requirement for a subsequent sale and that auction notice contained sufficient property description and valid valuation.
