The case examines whether a Section 148 notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid. Key takeaway: approval beyond three years required the higher authority under Section 151(ii), making the notice vulnerable.
The capital-gains addition of ₹4.02 crore arose from 143(1) but was included in the 143(3) scrutiny assessment. ITAT directed CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring the assessee’s rights during scrutiny are protected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the penalty appeal solely due to VSVS settlement of interest, without adjudicating the depreciation-related penalty. Key takeaway: all grounds must be decided on merits even when only part of the quantum is settled.
The Orissa High Court set aside a GST order of Rs.17.89 lakh after the tax periods in the adjudication did not match the show-cause notice, remitting the matter for fresh computation.
The AO changed the charge from bogus payments to 69A ‘Unaccounted Sales’ without issuing a fresh notice, denying the assessee a proper hearing. ITAT remanded the matter for verification of documentary evidence including invoices, GST returns, and e-way bills.
Madras HC quashed a GST assessment after petitioner missed a notice posted online and directed a fresh order, with 25% of disputed tax to be deposited in cash.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted Rs. 10.84 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that the assessee had properly documented loans and repayments. Key takeaway: Genuineness of transactions with third-party entities can neutralize claims of unexplained credits.
CESTAT Delhi held that microphones and receivers imported into India for manufacture of PCBA of cellular mobile phones is eligible for exemption from payment of customs duty under Exemption notification no. 57/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 prior to 06.07.2019.
The Tribunal held that several comparables selected by the tax authorities failed the RPT filter and were functionally dissimilar, warranting exclusion. It ordered verification, directed inclusion of suitable event-management comparables, and remanded the interest-on-receivables and ICDS issues for fresh review.
Court set aside assessment order, holding that failure to inform Assessing Officer about DRP filing is a procedural defect that can be remedied. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration after the DRP’s decision.
