The ITAT Hyderabad held that excess application of income by a charitable trust can be adjusted against subsequent year’s income if supported by the trust’s books and records. It remanded the matter to the AO only for factual verification.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund cannot be denied merely because invoices do not mention batch numbers if the required correlation is established through contemporaneous records. The matter was remanded for limited verification.
The ITAT Bangalore held that the return of income and Form No. 10DA were filed within the prescribed due date of 30.11.2018. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 80JJAA.
The NCLT held that limitation against the personal guarantor commenced when the continuing guarantee was invoked and not from the date of default. It admitted the insolvency petition after finding it was filed within the applicable limitation period.
CESTAT held that the appellant produced sufficient contractual and documentary evidence to establish that the incidence of OID Cess had not been passed on to the buyer. It therefore rejected the Department’s plea of unjust enrichment.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely describing a transaction as a loan by one party and a purchase advance by the other could not justify revision under Section 263. As the source of funds was explained and the amount was refunded, no addition under Section 69A was warranted.
The Gauhati High Court directed restoration of the cancelled GST registration subject to payment of all outstanding tax dues, penalties, and fines. The Court granted relief by following its earlier decision in a similar matter.
The Tribunal held that Schedule-I of ITR-7 applies only to amounts accumulated under Section 11(2) and not to deemed application under Explanation (1) to Section 11(1). It deleted the addition after finding that the lower authorities had incorrectly interpreted the ITR instructions.
Tribunal held that proviso to Regulation 7A allows insolvency professionals to continue assignments already underway even after their Authorisation for Assignment expires. Ruling distinguishes continuation of existing assignments from acceptance of fresh assignments.
The High Court held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without recording reasons in writing and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, contrary to Rule 46A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after following the prescribed procedure.
