Nannapaneni Krishnamurthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the investigation and proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 12 and 13 in Crime No. 8 of 2021 registered at the CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri. The case involves […]
The Tribunal found that the creditor’s reliance on invoice-based interest was insufficient because the invoices lacked the debtor’s consent. Consequently, the principal amount alone was considered, which did not meet the statutory threshold. The case underscores the requirement that interest must be contractually established to count toward default.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officers communication did not consider the assessees objections but only reiterated the basis of reopening. As the objections were not disposed of through a separate speaking order, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction. The ruling underscores that non-compliance with GKN Driveshafts cannot be treated as a mere procedural lapse.
The Tribunal emphasized that an error regarding VRS exemption made by a salaried, non-technical taxpayer cannot be classified as deliberate under-reporting. With no false claim or suppression, the 270A penalty was deleted.
Genuine sale was established through invoices, stock records, ledgers, bank proofs, and direct buyer confirmations, leaving no room for Section 68 additions. ITAT held that when sales are proved, no commission can be presumed under Section 69C.
Bombay High Court held that Brand Acquisition Agreement in respect of trademark –‘Crocin’ between parties is an agreement to Sale and such sale is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra hence not liable to sales tax @4% under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The Tribunal held that notices under section 153C issued without independent satisfaction by the AO are invalid, quashing the consequent assessments for AY 2018-19 to 2020-21.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed loans from Hallow Securities and Dhankalash were genuine, rejecting Revenue’s allegations of shell-company loans. Interest claimed on these loans was also allowed. The ruling highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in section 68 assessments.
The Bombay ITAT allowed a 363-day delay in filing appeals caused by misdirected emails, emphasizing liberal interpretation of sufficient cause and procedural fairness. Appeals were remitted for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that a 93-day delay caused by a tax professional’s mistaken assumption that the quantum appeal was already filed constituted a bona fide error. With no malafide intent shown, the delay was condoned, and both ex parte orders were remanded for fresh adjudication.
