The Tribunal directed fresh examination of whether the government allocation received by the assessee constituted a corpus fund under section 11(1)(d). It held that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee’s submissions, requiring the matter to be verified afresh.
The Court held that vehicles were detained and penalty collected without any seizure or adjudication order. It directed refund and allowed authorities to issue a proper show cause notice.
The Court refused to intervene against an SCN combining several financial years, noting that such consolidation is permitted under Sections 73 and 74. Since an appellate remedy existed, the assessee was relegated to appeal, with extension of time due to the pending writ. Recovery actions and attachments were set aside subject to filing the appeal.
Chauhan Kirana Trading Vs Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court) The petitioner challenged an order dated 5 April 2024 issued by the Sales Tax Officer for the period April 2018 to March 2019, raising a demand of ₹11,98,884. The petitioner also challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 27 December 2023 and […]
The High Court remanded the assessment order after finding the petitioner was unaware of the SCN and did not attend a personal hearing. The matter will be reconsidered after the petitioner files a reply and a fresh hearing is conducted.
The ITAT Pune held that splitting royalties for domestic vs export sales was impermissible, deleting the entire transfer pricing adjustment. The ruling reinforces that TNMM aggregation for manufacturing includes royalties as a single element.
ITAT Delhi ruled that policy advocacy for EU businesses in India is charitable, as it has no profit motive and benefits the public. CIT(E)’s denial was set aside, and 12A registration restored.
ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer since the assessee’s application for delayed 12A registration and condonation under Section 119(2)(b) was still undecided. The ruling underscores that exemption eligibility must be re-examined only after the competent authority disposes of the registration request.
ITAT clarifies that capital gains arise on the date of JDA execution, not registration, and allows reassessment if the agreement is cancelled before possession transfer.
ITAT Kolkata upheld deletion of ₹8.70 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that proper evidence and confirmations by loan creditors absolved the assessee. Arbitrary AO findings cannot justify tax.
