Smt. Vijaya Kanika Tirupati Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Reassessment Notice by JAO Held Invalid as CBDT Faceless Scheme was Mandatory Hyderabad Tribunal considered the legal ground challenging validity of notice issued u/s 148. Assessee submitted that both order u/s 148A(d) dated 23.03.2023 & notice u/s 148 issued on same date were passed by JAO, even […]
Bombay High Court held that full set-off not admissible under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, set-off available after reducing 6% of purchase price under Rule 41D(3)(a), on furnace oil used in manufacture of goods partly sold locally and partly transferred to branches outside the State.
The order reiterates that mere unusual price movement or high returns do not convert a scrip into a penny stock. With identical facts earlier examined and accepted, the Tribunal followed precedent and removed all additions.
ITAT emphasized that taxpayers must substantiate the receipt and benefit of group services, remanding the matter due to inadequate examination by lower authorities.
The ITAT ruled that the assessee’s exemption claim must be reassessed following a retrospective CBDT notification increasing the non-government leave encashment limit to ₹25 lakh. Earlier appellate decisions restricting exemption were set aside. Takeaway: retrospective amendments can reopen exemption eligibility in pending cases.
The apex court removed the cost imposed to the State Legal Services Authority after parties settled a cheque dishonour dispute. The ruling confirms that prior Article 142-based cost schemes cannot mandate payment in every case. Takeaway: each settlement must be evaluated on its own merits, not by automatic precedent.
The case examines whether bank-account freezing orders can stand without meeting mandatory requirements under Section 20 before invoking Section 8. The Court held that failure to follow the statutory scheme vitiated the confirmation orders. The key takeaway is that procedural lapses render downstream PMLA actions legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that unverified WhatsApp chats without Section 65B certification cannot justify additions under Section 69A. Key takeaway: digital messages must be authenticated and corroborated before being used against taxpayers.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the six-year limitation under Section 149 is invalid. Key takeaway: Tax authorities must strictly comply with statutory time limits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee’s audited accounts, finalized before demonetisation, clearly established sufficient cash balance to cover the ₹14 lakh deposit. Since Revenue produced no evidence of inflation or manipulation, the addition under Section 69A could not survive.
