Since the transactions in seized records were only notional mock trading entries and not unexplained cash credits, only brokerage income at 1% of transaction value was taxable.
Since the existence of financial debt and default was undisputed and all procedural requirements under Section 7 were satisfied, the petition of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Labhanshi Multitrade Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) deserved admission.
Assessee, being a charitable trust registered under Section 12A, was entitled to exemption under Sections 10(34) and 10(35) for dividend and mutual fund income therefore, denial of exemption by invoking Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) was unjustified
Since issuance of multiple show cause notices and orders for the same tax period under the TGST/CGST Acts was contrary to law and administrative propriety. therefore, in light of the State’s assurance and Circular No. LIV(2)/33/2025 dated 14.10.2025 introducing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act
Proforma invoices could not replace commercial invoices prepared after negotiation and accepted by customs. Statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon since the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed and the alleged proforma invoices were not duly proved or corroborated with evidence.
Denial of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for non-furnishing of Form 3CL did not preclude normal deduction u/s 35(1)(i) and depreciation u/s 32, as the research was related to the assessee’s business.
AO must apply their own mind to the contents of the DVO report and any other available material as relying solely on a DVO’s report without any independent inquiry or satisfaction was a fundamental jurisdictional flaw that invalidated the entire reassessment proceeding from the start.
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and liability under section 201 operated independently, and assessee could not escape TDS liability merely by making a partial disallowance in its return.
Revenue from film distribution was specifically excluded from the definition of “royalty” under both the Act and the India-USA DTAA and interest earned on income tax refund was not effectively connected with any permanent establishment in India and should be taxed at 15% as per Article 11(2) of the India-US DTAA.
Once the order of ITAT had attained finality on factual aspects and assessee had discharged the entire liability, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound, under Section 225(2) to lift the attachment on property.
