The Tribunal held that LTCG cannot be treated as bogus merely based on investigation reports. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and stock exchange channels prove genuineness.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration as the notice failed to specify the proper officer and lacked legal validity. It held that such defects violate principles of natural justice.
The case involves whether limitation for assessment can be extended based on a DTAA information request. The High Court held such extension invalid as the request covered pre-2011 periods outside DTAA scope. The key takeaway is that invalid references cannot extend statutory limitation.
The Supreme Court held that tax exemptions are concessions and can be withdrawn in public interest, rejecting claims of vested rights. However, it ruled that such withdrawal must be reasonable and provide a one-year notice period to avoid hardship.
The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowance of labour expenses without concrete evidence is unsustainable. It ruled that suspicion alone cannot justify additions when proper documentation exists.
The tribunal held that capital gains from share buyback are not taxable in India under treaty provisions. It clarified that such transactions qualify as corporate reorganisation. The key takeaway is that DTAA benefits override domestic tax provisions when more beneficial.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked in absence of exempt income. It clarified that taxable dividend income eliminates the basis for disallowance.
The tribunal found that STCG may have been counted twice, inflating taxable income. It directed verification and recomputation by the Assessing Officer. The ruling highlights correction of computational errors.
The issue involved additions for alleged cash payments based on third-party data and statements. ITAT deleted the additions, holding that no independent evidence or cross-examination opportunity was provided.
The ITAT clarified that Article 13(3A) applies strictly to shares and not to derivative instruments. It held that derivative gains fall under residual provisions and are taxable in the resident country. The ruling emphasizes correct interpretation of DTAA provisions.
