SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JM) For the Assessee : Shri Manikandan K. For the Department : Shri M.K. Singh ORDER Per Bench : These are appeals by the assessee against order's of learned CIT-A wherein following penalty levied under 271(1)(c) of the Act has been confirmed as under:- assessment year amount of penalty 2009-10 78,467 2010-11 223,022 2011-12 83,210 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assess... ... ...

Roving squad officers must not levy penalty where the offence amount is below Rs. 5,000, or where tax-rate, classification, place-of-supply, or valuation disputes are referred for assessment without detention. Newly registered taxpayers who have failed to file returns for two or more tax periods may be subject to vehicle detention. Specified e-way bill errors, including limited name, PIN-code, document-number, HSN, and vehicle-number inaccuracies, do not require detention proceedings if other particulars are correct, but attract prescribed penalties through Form GST DRC-07.

Registered persons unable to submit FORM GST TRAN-1 by the prescribed deadline because of technical difficulties on the common portal may file until 31 March 2019 only where their cases are recommended by the Council. The extension is exercised under rule 117(1A) read with section 168 and supersedes the prior measure while preserving earlier acts and omissions.

Order XLI confines remand under Rule 23 to reversal of a decree disposing of a suit on a preliminary point. Rule 23-A permits remand in other matters only after reversal and where retrial is necessary. Where trial findings rest on the existing evidence, an appellate court must address them and give cogent reasons before reversal; inability to decide from the record alone does not establish necessity for retrial. Rule 27(1)(b) cannot admit additional evidence absent a party's request and identified necessity or substantial cause. A sufficient record requires appellate determination under Rule 24, not remand to cure evidentiary deficiencies.

DEPB scrips may be used to pay Clean Energy Cess levied as additional duty of customs under the Customs Tariff Act. The restriction in the third proviso to Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules applies only to utilisation of CENVAT credit and does not restrict payment through DEPB scrips. Clean Energy Cess levied under the additional-duty mechanism retains the character of customs duty, while the governing DEPB notification contains no express prohibition on such use. Consequently, a demand denying DEPB utilisation for this cess is unsustainable.

Under section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act and rule 80 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, the Commissioner of State Tax replaces 28 February 2021 with 31 March 2021 as the prescribed annual-return compliance date. The revised timeline is deemed to have come into force on 28 February 2021.

GST refund of a pre-deposit after a favourable appellate order is affected where the online portal prevents entry of interest exceeding the recorded demand amount. The issue concerns the procedural response to this validation error and the records needed to support a refund claim for the pre-deposit and associated interest. Supporting material must substantiate the appellate relief, payment of the pre-deposit, and the interest component claimed.

The Deputy Commissioner of the Large Taxpayers Unit, as assigned by the Joint Commissioner (ST), is designated as the proper officer for appellate-review functions. The designated officer may call for and examine records of subordinate decisions or orders under the Tamil Nadu, Central, Integrated and Compensation to States GST enactments to assess their legality or propriety, and may file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within six months of communication.

Standing to maintain income-tax proceedings for a deceased assessee requires the claimant to establish, through cogent material, that the claimant represents or has intermeddled with the deceased's estate. Section 159(3), read with the definitions of assessee and legal representative, treats a qualifying legal representative as an assessee. Failure to prove that representative capacity prevents maintenance of the appeal; the lawful representative may seek revival according to law.

Fees for technical services under Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA require more than managerial, technical or consultancy characterisation. The services must satisfy an additional treaty gateway, including making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes that enable the recipient to apply the technology independently. Advice, operational assistance, recurring support, training or business benefits do not alone establish transfer of technical capability. Where the DTAA is more beneficial than the broader domestic definition, the treaty limitation governs, subject to treaty-residence and documentation requirements.

Exchange-rate reporting for export of services in GSTR-1 is raised as a GST compliance issue. The query concerns whether the Reserve Bank of India reference-rate archive may be used to obtain the exchange rate for invoice reporting. It identifies the need to determine the appropriate exchange-rate source for export-service invoices under the GST return framework, without setting out a concluded position on its permissibility.

Foreign tax credit for foreign employment income taxed in India and Malaysia remains available where foreign taxes paid and treaty entitlement are otherwise established. Delayed filing of the prescribed foreign tax credit form and supporting proof does not, by itself, extinguish double taxation relief. The filing deadline operates as a technical procedural requirement and cannot defeat a substantiated entitlement to credit under the applicable tax treaty.

Substance over form prevents transactions of an individual's proprietary business from being attributed to a partnership firm solely because the firm's PAN was incorrectly mapped to the business bank accounts during KYC updating. Bank confirmations, GST records, returns, financial statements and purchase records may establish the actual proprietor and the firm's lack of involvement. Such erroneously reported transactions cannot be assessed as the firm's income or turnover.

Contingent liabilities disclosed in an audit report cannot be adjusted during return processing where the amount was neither debited to the profit and loss account nor claimed in computing total income. The adjustment mechanism for audit-report expenditure not considered in total income applies only where an expenditure exists; a performance guarantee disclosed solely as a contingent liability does not meet that condition. Verification of the return, audit report and computation already on record does not involve admission of additional evidence, so the procedure governing additional evidence is not engaged. The processing adjustment is therefore unsustainable and its deletion remains effective.

Reassessment initiated more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year requires sanction under Section 151(ii) from the specified higher authorities: the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General. Approval granted by the Principal Commissioner does not satisfy this jurisdictional precondition for issuing a Section 148 notice. Consequently, a notice issued on such unauthorised approval is without jurisdiction, and the resulting reassessment and consequential disallowance of deduction cannot survive.

Suppressed sales represent gross trading receipts, not taxable income in their entirety, because they include the cost of goods as well as profit. Matching purchase data across two software systems established only invoice-backed recorded purchases and did not rule out unbilled cash purchases; barcoding independently controlled inventory. In the absence of supplier evidence, payment trails, audit logs, undisclosed cash, excess stock, or assets supporting a 100% margin or higher profit rate, only the gross-profit element in the unrecorded turnover was taxable. Additions of the full suppressed-sales value were deleted, while income offered on a gross-profit basis was accepted.

Section 144C(13) requires a final assessment conforming to Dispute Resolution Panel directions to be completed within the statutory period. The COVID-19 exclusion of limitation applied only to proceedings instituted by litigants before judicial or quasi-judicial forums; it did not extend the Department's deadline to complete assessments under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, an assessment completed after that deadline remained time-barred, and the earlier quashing of the assessment disclosed no mistake apparent from the record warranting recall.

Under the pre-restriction statutory formulation, a resident individual taxable under section 115BAC(1A) and within the prescribed total-income ceiling is analysed as eligible for section 87A rebate against income-tax on total income, including tax on qualifying short-term capital gains under section 111A. Section 111A fixes the special-rate computation but contains no express rebate exclusion. The explicit exclusion for specified long-term gains in section 112A(6) supports this distinction. Later limiting language in section 87A must be applied according to the statutory period concerned.

Extended limitation under section 149(1)(b) may operate where books, documents or evidence reveal escaped income meeting the prescribed monetary threshold and represented as an asset, qualifying expenditure, or entries in books of account. These categories operate disjunctively; qualifying book entries may therefore provide an independent jurisdictional basis without resolving whether cash entries are assets. Handwritten and digital records may be treated as books where possession, control, corroboration, and attribution establish their nexus with the taxpayer.

Favourable testing by an accredited laboratory required release of the detained goods despite the department's pending appeal. Earlier directions for representative sampling and laboratory testing had attained finality because no appeal was filed against them. A proposed referral test could not justify continued withholding of the goods or negate those directions. The High Court required release within 48 hours and issuance of a detention certificate for the entire detention period until release.