The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the Allahabad High Court ruling holding that mere excess stock found during survey cannot justify confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a genuine clerical mistake in Form 10 cannot deprive a charitable trust of exemption under Section 11(2) when the accumulation claim was properly disclosed elsewhere and corrected before assessment completion.
The Tribunal ruled that a Section 153C notice issued beyond the statutory ten-year period could not survive in law. The assessment order passed pursuant to such notice was therefore annulled as time-barred.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the co-operative housing society’s deduction claim under Section 80P(2)(d). The ruling emphasized that the claim required proper factual verification instead of outright rejection.
The article explains how smartphones, digital onboarding, and app-based platforms have made investing more accessible across India. It also outlines key factors investors should consider before selecting a share market app.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot survive where ledger accounts, bank statements, and lender confirmations establish genuine banking transactions. Mere suspicion arising from search information was held insufficient.
The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend arising from reduction of share capital qualified for exemption under Section 10(34). The decision followed earlier Bombay High Court rulings involving identical transactions and shareholders.
The Delhi ITAT held that a reassessment notice digitally signed on 31 March 2021 but served on 1 April 2021 falls under the new Section 148A regime. Failure to follow mandatory reassessment procedures rendered the entire assessment void.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted additions under Section 69 after holding that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal ruled that third-party statements cannot be relied upon against an assessee without allowing effective cross-examination.
ROC Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized under Section 12(8) despite claims of temporary closure and health-related disruptions.
