GST Audit Checklist Explained: Compliance Failures That Trigger Tax, ITC Reversal & Deemed Supplies; GST Audit Reveals ITC Risks Due to Section 16, Rule 42/43 & RCM Non-Compliance; GST Audit Checklist: Why Incorrect Classification, LUT Lapses & Export Errors Invite Scrutiny; GST Audit Findings Explained: Vendor Payment Delays, Capital Goods Sale & ITC Reversal Issues; […]
In the last two years, dozens of Indian startups—across SaaS, D2C, fintech, and tech sectors—have faced down-rounds, flat rounds, or even investor exits at lower valuations. Despite strong user growth, many founders discovered the hard way that overvaluation is not a badge of honour—it’s a trap. In 2025, with new RBI, CBDT, and Companies Act […]
The tribunal ruled that ignoring a valid adjournment request vitiates ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. The is that fair opportunity is mandatory before deciding tax disputes.
ITAT Raipur remands bogus purchase disallowance for a rice miller, awaiting the High Court’s ruling. The case will be reconsidered de novo following legal principles once HC decides.
Revenue challenged deletions of additions in a scrutiny assessment, highlighting procedural lapses under Rule 46A. Tribunal remitted the matter for fresh adjudication considering additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 10,00,059/- as the addition was based solely on uncorroborated third-party information. No primary evidence linked the assessee to the alleged accommodation entries.
Tribunal rules that procedural delay in filing Form 10B does not bar exemption under sections 11 and 12, following Supreme Court guidance on procedural lapses.
ITAT quashed a reassessment under section 147 as the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2), rendering the assessment legally invalid.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that section 144C cannot override outer time limits under section 153. Assessments passed beyond statutory deadlines are void, reinforcing strict compliance with limitation periods.
Tribunal held that commission could not be treated as bogus where the recipient company’s existence was established through income tax returns, refunds, and official records, leading to deletion of the disallowance.
