ITAT held that CSR contributions can qualify for deduction under Section 80G if conditions are met. The ruling clarifies that there is no blanket prohibition on such claims under the law.
ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked when the Assessing Officer has already examined the issue. The ruling emphasizes that mere disagreement with enquiry results does not justify revision.
The court recorded the Revenue’s statement withdrawing the suspension of registration and ordered immediate restoration. It held that further action must follow due process and proper hearing.
The issue was whether lack of detailed charges invalidates a show cause notice. The Court found that the taxpayer’s detailed replies indicated understanding of allegations. The key takeaway is that effective response can negate claims of vagueness.
The issue was whether parents-in-law can claim maintenance from a daughter-in-law. The Court held that the law does not include parents-in-law within eligible categories. The key takeaway is that maintenance rights are strictly limited to statutory provisions.
The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition as the Revenue had an effective statutory remedy by way of appeal. It held that issues of legal interpretation must be pursued through appellate mechanisms.
The ITAT held that reopening was invalid as it was based on the same material already examined during the original assessment. It ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a concluded issue.
With the reassessment proceedings held invalid, additions relating to property valuation and unexplained investment were not examined on merits. The appeal was allowed on legal grounds.
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 94(7) without verifying facts. The matter was remanded for fresh examination with proper opportunity to the assessee.
The court held that the impugned GST notifications were invalid as they curtailed limitation and were based on erroneous legal assumptions. The ruling clarifies that such arbitrary notifications cannot override statutory provisions.
