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.
Supreme Court rules that foreign taxpayers without current projects or PE in India can still set off expenses and depreciation against refund interest.
The Court ruled that trade with PoK falls within India’s taxable territory, attracting CGST and SGST. Key takeaway: PoK is treated as part of India for GST place-of-supply rules.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s turnover before applying corporate tax. If turnover for FY 2018-19 is under ₹400 crore, the tax rate must be computed at 25% instead of 30%.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2010-11, noting that AO failed to verify agricultural income and bank deposits properly. CIT(A) also overlooked key evidence. The case is remitted for fresh assessment to ensure proper scrutiny.
The Tribunal quashed penalties for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, holding that show-cause notices must clearly specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c). Vague notices violating natural justice cannot sustain penalties. This reinforces the strict requirement for specificity in penalty proceedings.
Tribunal held that CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal despite Supreme Court–mandated limitation extensions. COVID-19–related delays must be liberally condoned when reasonable cause is shown.
The Tribunal clarified two key issues: depreciation on assets received in demerger and PF/ESI contribution disallowances. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed for AY 2017-18, while the assessee’s appeal for AY 2024-25 was partly allowed. This decision reinforces consistency in asset-related claims and practical application of Section 36(1)(va).
