ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
ITAT held that the entire disputed turnover cannot be added when purchases are accepted and books are not rejected. Only the embedded profit is taxable, leading to restriction of addition to 5% of turnover.
ITAT ruled that a scrutiny order cannot override a 143(1) intimation if the AO fails to examine pending 154 grievances. The case was remanded because the core adjustments were never adjudicated.
RBI introduces a uniform framework governing interest rates, premature withdrawal penalties, and deposit treatment to ensure fairness and transparency across Local Area Banks.
The Tribunal ruled that the entity did not qualify as an educational institution or as substantially government-financed, leading to denial of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exemption. The dispute over taxing gross receipts was remanded for a fresh decision. Key takeaway: fund management alone cannot justify exemption.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on earlier-year assumptions cannot sustain without year-specific evidence. It found no material to show that current-year sales or debtors were bogus. The takeaway is that assessments must be supported by concrete evidence, not presumptions.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 additions as the Revenue relied only on uncorroborated statements and pen-drive data from third parties, violating natural justice. Suspicion alone cannot justify tax additions.
The Court held that dividend income, bank-deposit interest, and SDF service charges are not derived from long-term finance. Only direct lending profits qualify for the deduction.
The Supreme Court held that the corporate debtor’s alleged pre-existing dispute lacked any factual basis and reinstated NCLT’s CIRP admission. The ruling reaffirms that illusory or unsupported defences cannot defeat a Section 9 IBC claim.
The Court held that once the statutory deadline expires, an arbitrator becomes functus officio and cannot be granted a fresh extension. It ordered substitution under Section 29A(6), reinforcing strict timelines for arbitral awards.
