ITAT Nagpur set aside a tax addition of ₹15 lakh under Section 68 against Annuva Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the company had sufficiently discharged its burden by providing comprehensive documentation, including bank statements and confirmations, to prove the share capital transaction was genuine.
Earth Minerals successfully challenged the detention and penalty orders by Uttar Pradesh GST authorities for the inter-state movement of a Motor Grader to a project site. The Allahabad High Court relied on Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) circulars, holding that such movement for self-use in a works contract is ‘neither a supply of goods nor service’ and is not liable for IGST.
The Allahabad High Court, in U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited vs Union of India, quashed a tax recovery notice, holding that an assessee must be given credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) if they provide valid Form 16A certificates, even if the amount is not reflected in Form 26AS.
AP High Court held that a single composite order cannot be passed for distinct GST periods, remanding case for fresh assessments in line with statutory requirements.
Andhra Pradesh HC upholds GST registration cancellation, citing non-occupancy of declared business premises and adherence to Section 29 personal hearing rules.
Delhi High Court set aside the Section 148A(3) order for non-resident Ferra Engineering and remanded the case to the AO for fresh consideration on a capital gains transaction.
Madras High Court in R.R. Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs affirmed that the mandatory 7.5% pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act cannot be waived solely because an appellant’s bank account has been frozen by the department. The court directed the appellant to make deposit to revive their customs appeal.
Tribunal held that an assessee cannot be penalized for delay caused by professional negligence of counsel, following Supreme Court precedent in Rafiq v. Munshilal, and remanded the case for verification of double addition due to audit reporting error.
The ITAT Ahmedabad rules that an assessment framed on a dissolved firm is not automatically void if the Assessing Officer (AO) was not notified of the dissolution. The case, Krishna Enterprise Vs ITO, involved a firm dissolved in 2016, a subsequent ex-parte assessment, and issues of non-compliance and alleged double taxation, leading to the matter being restored for re-adjudication.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in ACIT Vs Deluxe Recycling India Private Limited that the increase in the safe harbour limit from 5% to 10% for the difference between stamp duty value and actual consideration under Section 56(2)(x) is curative and retrospective. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, deleting an addition, and restored the issues of depreciation and rent disallowance to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.
