The Court held that interest and related receipts must be treated as business income, not income from other sources. The Tribunal’s order was upheld as no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that the denial of 12AB registration could not stand where the assessee was not given an effective chance to submit documents. The matter was remanded to ensure compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the trust’s exemption claim must be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s AUDA judgment, which redefined rules for general public utility entities. The key issue is whether fee-based activities exceed the statutory limits under section 2(15).
The Court ruled that the assessment was invalid because it was passed without a personal hearing. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with directions for proper notice and hearing.
The Court held that further custody was unnecessary as allegations of fraudulent ITC were yet to be adjudicated and evidence was documentary. Bail was granted with conditions.
The Court held that the impugned GST notice and adjudication orders suffered from multiple legal defects and quashed them. Authorities can issue a fresh notice, with limitation suspended for the contested period.
The Court held that deposits taken during investigation were not duty payments, so Section 11BB did not apply. Interest was payable from the date of deposit at 12%, reinforcing that revenue cannot retain money without authority of law.
Chander Shekher Saini Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Facts: The assessee, Shri Chander Shekher Saini, is a retired employee who served initially with the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and, pursuant to restructuring, with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), a company wholly owned by the Government of Punjab. It is not in dispute that the […]
This title highlights that the correct tax regime depends on your real deductions, not assumptions. The comparison shows how your financial profile—not salary—determines which option saves more tax.
The Authority held that suppliers of goods cannot issue tax invoices on advances because Notification No. 66/2017 prescribes mandatory timing of tax liability. The ruling clarifies that advances must be documented through receipt vouchers only.
