The Patna ITAT upheld rejection of a trust’s Section 12AB registration after finding that the trust deed permitted application of income for persons residing outside India. The Tribunal held that Section 11 allows exemption only for charitable expenditure incurred in India.
The High Court held that documents received through official international channels carry presumption of genuineness but must still satisfy proof requirements under Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 69A could not be invoked where the Assessing Officer himself accepted that transactions were recorded in the books of account. The matter was remanded for limited verification of sales records and related documents.
The Mumbai ITAT held that exemption under Section 54F has to be given effect before applying set-off provisions under Section 70(3). The assessee was allowed to carry forward long-term capital loss separately.
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Bombay High Court order condoning delay in filing Form 10B audit report under the Income Tax Act. The High Court had accepted the explanation that the delay occurred due to lack of awareness of newly introduced online filing procedures.
CESTAT Chennai held that lower authorities failed to comprehensively verify courier invoices, consignment notes and tax payment records before confirming service tax demand. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Madras High Court set aside a Section 74 GST assessment order involving mismatch between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-7 returns in government contract transactions. The Court ordered fresh adjudication after noting that 23% of the disputed tax had already been recovered.
ITAT observed that Assessing Officer had treated jewellery sale proceeds as unexplained mainly because no wealth tax returns were filed. Tribunal restored the matter for fresh examination in light of supporting vouchers and legal precedents.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside anti-dumping duty demands after finding that WhatsApp chats, emails, and statements relied upon by Revenue were not authenticated under Section 138C of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that primary documentary evidence supporting Uzbekistan origin had not been disproved.
The Calcutta High Court directed GSTN authorities to carry out backend changes after the GST portal failed to process the taxpayer’s request to opt out of the QRMP Scheme. The Court permitted migration to monthly GST return filing from March 2026.
