Tribunal held that AO erred by rejecting agricultural income based on estimated rates and online data while ignoring affidavits from buyers. It ruled that uncontroverted evidence cannot be replaced by assumptions, leading to deletion of ₹1.20 crore addition.
The ruling found no liability to deduct TDS because individual payments to transferors were below the statutory threshold. Consequently, the fee and interest imposed under Section 234E were set aside.
The High Court set aside reassessment notices for not following mandatory faceless procedures introduced by recent Finance Act amendments. The ruling underscores that non-faceless issuance violates statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that additions made by treating real estate receipts as capital gains required fresh verification. The case was remanded as the earlier order failed to examine the assessee’s claim of business income under section 44AD.
The Court held that cost directions based on earlier guidelines cannot be enforced as binding precedent. It set aside the imposed costs since the complainant sought no further payment and the appellant could not comply.
Tribunal held that the AO had validly recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee’s 14A working and rightly invoked Rule 8D, confirming interest disallowance while remanding only the investment-averaging computation for Vireet-based recalculation.
The CESTAT Mumbai allowed an appeal against customs duty reassessment, holding that reclassification of copper busbars for EOU imports exceeded authorities’ jurisdiction and violated notification provisions.
The Tribunal held that the extended period could not be invoked because the Department was already aware of the appellant’s activities. Service tax was upheld only for the normal period, and the matter was remanded for recalculation.
HC held that delayed appeals need not prevent GST Registration restoration when taxpayer undertakes to file returns and pay outstanding dues. Restoration was directed subject to completing statutory formalities.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed a tax appeal due to a 1,370-day delay, ruling that reliance on a tax consultant’s advice does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. Case underscores strict adherence to limitation rules in tax proceedings.
