ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the interest on nonrecoverable loans has not been recorded by the assessee and accordingly no deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act was claimed. Thus, addition made thereon is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment on the basis of factually incorrect facts and reasons without application of mind and without verification of facts cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The amendment to Explanation 1(d) of Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017, effected vide Notification No. 14/2022 – Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, was prospective in nature, therefore, any claim for ITC made in respect of periods antecedent to the notification could not be sustained.
Mens rea was not essential for penalty under Section 117, revocation of the courier license was unwarranted; penalties under both Section 117 of the Customs Act and Regulation 14 of the 2010 Regulations were validly imposed.
Orissa High Court held that initiation of proceedings on same subject matter under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act by different tax administrations is not justifiable. Accordingly, subsequent proceedings initiated by Central Proper Officer not sustained.
Delhi High Court held that separate transfer pricing adjustment for AMP was uncalled for given that the distribution business of assessee was already benchmarked separately and the transaction was benchmarked correctly.
Gauhati High Court held that the Summary of the SCN issued in FORM GST DRC-01 does not substitute the proper SCN required under Section 73(1) of both the Central and State GST Acts. Accordingly, order set aside and writ petition is allowed.
The Madras High Court set aside a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, holding it void under the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Court ruled that only the Faceless Assessment Officer has the authority to issue such notices. This decision reinforces the binding nature of the faceless reassessment mechanism post-notification.
The Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to dispose of a representation pending since 2014 within six weeks. The Court noted that the Department had already acknowledged the delay and must now act promptly. The ruling reinforces that prolonged inaction on taxpayer representations is unacceptable.
The Court stayed recovery proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) against the assessee’s bank accounts, noting that a stay application was already scheduled for hearing. Since the taxpayer had exercised his appellate and rectification rights, the Court found the Department’s coercive action premature. It ordered maintenance of status quo until the next hearing date. The judgment emphasizes fairness and procedural propriety in tax recovery.
