ITAT Raipur ruled that cash deposits made by an advocate on behalf of clients cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO and CIT(A)/NFAC conducted no inquiry and ignored over 100 supporting challans. This reinforces the principle that evidence and factual verification are essential before making additions.
Explains the step-by-step method to verify GST challan payments on the portal and avoid delays in return filing.
Explains the new structural changes, including Table 6A1 and enhanced reconciliations, and highlights the steps needed to avoid mismatches and notices.
Explains the tax treatment and mandatory ITR disclosures for foreign ESOPs, highlighting the need to report shares annually and avoid penalties.
ITAT Raipur set aside a Rs. 14.73 lakh addition under Section 69C after finding the CIT(A) misinterpreted the assessee’s wife’s financial capacity, affirming proper documentation supports legitimate expenditure.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that interconnect service charges paid to non-resident telecom operators do not constitute royalty. The appeal by DCIT was dismissed, following a prior Co-ordinate Bench decision.
This title highlights the bank’s invitation for external auditors to conduct detailed concurrent audits covering multiple operational and risk-sensitive areas. The RFP outlines eligibility requirements, scope of work, timelines, and strict compliance obligations for participating firms.
Disallowance of ₹10.2 lakh on bank interest by the AO was reversed by ITAT, relying on favorable Karnataka HC rulings. The Tribunal confirmed that interest on surplus funds deposited in co-operative banks counts as business income eligible for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction.
The Court held that ITC refund on capital goods cannot be granted when the dealer failed to file TRAN-1 under GST transition rules. The ruling confirms that the VAT Act provides no mechanism for such refunds.
Delhi High Court remits Rs. 3.05 Cr CGST demand for re-adjudication after observing the Proper Officer did not consider the petitioner’s detailed reply and failed to provide opportunity to clarify.
