The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained income. It ruled that proper documentation and traceability negate applicability of Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the TPO failed to consider the assessee’s Internal CUP benchmarking despite directions from the DRP. It directed fresh examination using the correct method and excluded certain NCDs from adjustment.
The issue was whether exemption under Section 54 could be restricted to one property. ITAT held that prior to the 2015 amendment, multiple residential properties were eligible, and full deduction must be allowed.
The ITAT held that a 29-day delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and cannot be the sole basis for denying exemption under Sections 11 and 12. It ruled that substantial compliance and availability of the audit report before processing must be considered. The AO was directed to reassess the exemption claim accordingly.
The authority introduced a digital system to track and manage food recalls. It enables regulators, businesses, and consumers to access real-time recall information.
The High Court held that interest under Section 234B must be waived where conflicting judicial decisions created uncertainty regarding tax exemption. The rejection of the waiver application was set aside.
The Court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns can be reconsidered if the taxpayer files pending returns and clears dues, directing authorities to consider restoration.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where income variation arises from genuine computational mistakes. It ruled that voluntary correction during assessment indicates absence of intent to conceal income. The penalty was there-fore deleted.
The court held that jurisdiction existed when the order was passed post-circular. It upheld penalties for fraudulent ITC and fake invoices, rejecting the jurisdiction challenge.
The Court quashed the order passed without response, allowing reconsideration after deposit and hearing. It emphasized the need for fair opportunity before adjudication.
