The Tribunal deleted ₹8,82,278/- addition after assessing income under two heads. Initially, the A.O. and CIT(A) had sustained the addition as unexplained. Key takeaway: all income heads must be considered during reconciliation after a search.
The ITAT set aside CIT(E) orders denying Section 12A registration and 80G approval due to non-receipt of document requests, allowing the trust a fresh opportunity to comply.
Parasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Dehradun) Rule 29 Rescues Assessee- Loans Need Fresh Look: ITAT Admits New Evidence, Sends Rs.90 Lakh Addition Back to AO Assessee appealed against NFAC order dated 08.10.2024 sustaining addition of Rs.90,00,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE towards unsecured loans from M/s Yogya Shippings Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50 lakh) & M/s […]
ITAT Delhi held that DRP is a quasi-judicial authority and is required to issue directions on all the objections raised by assessee. Failure to adjudicate certain components results into violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of DRP.
Explains how exporting electricity to the grid becomes a taxable “barter” event, making electricity an exempt supply and triggering proportional ITC reversal under Section 17(2).
The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the appeal could not be dismissed in limine. CIT(A) must issue a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6).
CESTAT Allahabad held that demand made in respect of works contract services provide to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is not sustainable since the services are provided to Government Authority and the same are exempted in terms of Notification 25/2012-ST.
Tribunal rules that documented proof of shareholder identity and creditworthiness outweigh unverified third-party statements for income-tax purposes.
The Tribunal condoned a 28-day delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The assessee had failed to comply with notices and did not provide evidence for deductions. All additions made by the Assessing Officer, including capital gains and salary income, were upheld.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of claim in CIRP of corporate debtor justified since Appellants failed to establish the crucial aspect of transfer of monies to the bank account of Corporate Debtor for purchase of flats.
