ITAT Delhi directed the AO to compute Annual Letting Value (ALV) only for the portion of the house property actually rented out (third/fourth floors). Taxing the entire property based on assumptions, ignoring the owner’s self-occupation, was held to be unjustified.
Allahabad High Court quashed GST orders under Section 74, holding that ITC cannot be denied when purchases were made from a registered dealer whose GST registration was later cancelled.
ITAT Kolkata deleted a Rs.7.11 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that an assessee’s comprehensive documentary evidence (PAN, bank statements) cannot be dismissed merely because subscribers failed to appear for summons. The onus shifted back to the Revenue.
SC held that private stage carriage operators cannot be granted permits on inter-State routes overlapping notified intra-State routes, reaffirming that State transport schemes under Chapter VI of Motor Vehicles Act override inter-State agreements.
ITAT found authorities erred by upholding CPC’s denial of exemption solely because assessee filed ITR-7 instead of ITR-5. Ruling emphasizes that denying a just claim over procedural non-compliance causes undue hardship to taxpayer.
The Madras High Court quashed an order levying 1% GST on a corporate guarantee furnished to a related party, ruling that the assessing officer failed to consider two relevant CBIC Circulars. The court remanded the matter back to the State Tax Officer for a fresh determination after considering the petitioner’s defense, which relied on the recipient being eligible for full Input Tax Credit.
Understand the provisions of tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, including its objectives, applicability, prescribed forms, due dates, and penalties for non-compliance by businesses and professionals.
ITAT Chennai held that when sales are accepted and supported by records, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers were untraceable. Addition restricted to 12.5% as profit element.
AO made an addition based on difference between stamp value and purchase price without referring matter to a Valuation Officer despite assessee’s objection. ITAT held this omission violated Section 56(2)(x) and principles of natural justice. It observed that assessee’s registered valuer report showing a lower market value was ignored. Consequently, addition was quashed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order because it was passed against an Assessee who had already expired, which rendered the order null and void. The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after substituting the legal representative.
