The Tribunal held that denial of CSR expenditure under Section 37 does not bar deduction under Section 80G. It ruled that eligible donations forming part of CSR must be examined under Chapter VI-A independently. The key takeaway is that CSR-linked donations can still qualify for tax relief if statutory conditions are met.
CESTAT held that goods cannot be confiscated without concrete evidence of illegal import. Local market opinion alone was found insufficient to establish smuggling of non-notified goods.
The High Court considered whether continued custody was justified in a GST offence case after filing of the complaint. It granted bail noting prolonged detention and the likelihood of delay in trial.
The tribunal examined whether reassessment could be initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction over a non-resident assessee. It held that notices issued by an incorrect authority render the entire reassessment void.
SC upheld the quashing of reassessment where identical foreign investment transactions were examined and accepted in subsequent assessments.
The High Court held that once identical transactions were examined and accepted in later assessments, the basis for reopening earlier years did not survive.
The tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss was deductible as it was recorded under a consistent mercantile accounting system and in line with applicable accounting standards. The ruling reiterates that such losses are allowable when gains are similarly taxed.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of an appeal without effective hearing violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to grant adequate opportunity.
The tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued after three years was invalid as sanction was taken from an incompetent authority. The assessment was quashed for non-compliance with section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal upheld revision where the Assessing Officer failed to examine an exempt LTCG claim linked to penny stock manipulation. The ruling affirms that lack of inquiry makes an order erroneous and prejudicial.
