CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the assessee establishes a real and sufficient nexus between the disputed input services and its output services. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove otherwise and set aside the credit denial.
The Court held that TDS certificates and income tax filings established a prima facie jural relationship between the parties. It granted interim protection after finding that the respondent could not deny a relationship previously acknowledged before tax authorities.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order on penalty under Section 270A and remanded the matter to the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the penalty issue should be reconsidered along with the pending quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 could not be invoked where YEIDA payments were recorded in the books and funded through an RBI-registered NBFC. The ruling emphasizes that explained and documented sources of investment cannot be treated as unexplained investments.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 cannot rest merely on information received from the Investigation Wing or Insight Portal. Since the Assessing Officer conducted no independent enquiry or verification, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India. The addition of Rs. 99.50 crore was therefore deleted.
ITAT held that execution and registration of a sale deed completes the transfer for capital gains purposes. Delayed receipt of sale consideration or dishonoured cheques cannot postpone taxability when the registered transfer remains valid.
The ITAT Kolkata held that cash payments made through agents for procuring paddy from farmers were covered by Rule 6DD exceptions. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte GST assessment order after the appeal period had expired. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply to the show cause notice.
The Court held that although notices were sent to the address available in PAN and passport records, the reassessment order could not stand because the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessment, demand notices, penalties, and recovery proceedings were set aside.
