A practical two-day GSTAT workshop equips professionals with drafting, presentation, and procedural skills to excel in GST appellate practice.
The Court held that leasing a residential building used as a hostel for students and professionals falls within “renting of residential dwelling for use as residence.” It ruled that GST exemption applies even if the lessee does not personally reside there.
SC directs Bar Council of India to ensure at least 30% of seats and office-bearer posts in every State Bar Council are reserved for women, addressing underrepresentation.
Because differing judicial views existed on taxation of co-operative society interest income, the AO’s accepted position could not be termed erroneous. The Tribunal ruled that debatable issues cannot trigger section 263 revision.
Tribunal held that an unsigned 143(2) notice violates Section 282A(1), making reassessment void. Ruling confirms that signature is mandatory and cannot be cured under Section 292B.
Explains how errors in Table 7, especially 17(5) reversals and Column H issues, trigger schema validation failures despite correct data and offers safe workarounds.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules routine cash deposits of small traders cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, even if no return is filed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a flat booked in 2009 is valued based on that year, even if the flat number changed later, preventing a ₹1.26 crore addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The assessee furnished PANs, bank statements, and confirmations proving the genuineness of share capital and loan transactions, leading to dismissal of the Revenue appeal. Both CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed that repayment and identity verification are sufficient. This reinforces legal certainty in documented transactions under Section 68.
ITAT held that ₹1.5 Cr advance for a real estate project, which became irrecoverable, qualifies as a trading loss under section 28. The decision reverses AO and CIT(A) disallowances, allowing the loss as a business expense.
NCLAT Delhi held that Prospective Resolution Applicant or unsuccessful Resolution Applicant doesn’t have vested right to challenge a resolution process or an approved resolution plan. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
