Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained where confirmations, bank statements, and tax returns establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness through banking channels.
This article clarifies when e-invoicing is mandatory for export supplies under GST. It explains that only taxable exports require e-invoices, regardless of whether an LUT is filed. The key takeaway is that LUT affects tax payment, not e-invoice applicability.
The webinar explains how the first reply and pleadings determine the direction of GSTAT appeals. It highlights drafting as a strategic tool that can influence outcomes through all appellate stages.
CA Lakshman Kumar Kadali CA Akash Heda Introduction: Recently, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27/10/2025 appointing the proper officers under Section 122, 74A, 75(2) of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017. The circular has expressly stated that no proper officer has […]
The Tribunal held that Section 54B requires purchase by the assessee himself. Investment in agricultural land in the wife’s name does not qualify for deduction.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based only on presumptions and low income of subscribers are invalid. Proper documentary evidence outweighs non-appearance under summons.
The Tribunal held that a Section 54 exemption can be claimed in a reassessment return if it directly relates to escaped income. Delay or non-filing of the original return under Section 139(1) alone cannot defeat a substantive deduction.
The issue is accurate reporting of GST for notified tobacco goods. The takeaway is a step-by-step approach aligned with system validations and legal provisions.
The tax authorities denied Section 54 relief citing delay in completing construction. The Tribunal ruled that Section 54 is a beneficial provision and does not mandate full completion within three years.
The issue was whether a recorded share investment can be treated as unexplained under Section 69. The Tribunal held that once an investment is recorded in the books and its source is not doubted, Section 69 cannot be invoked.
