The department argued that credit must be split across units. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 7 allowed discretionary distribution. The decision clarifies the scope of ISD credit rules before amendment.
The issue was whether repayment of loans through banking channels proves genuineness under Section 68. ITAT Delhi held it does not, ruling that bogus loans remain unexplained even if repaid.
The issue was whether a single satisfaction note for multiple years is valid under Section 153C. ITAT Pune held it invalid, ruling that separate satisfaction per year is mandatory, thereby quashing the entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that audit under section 44AB depends on turnover, not taxability of income. Exempt entities must still comply if limits are exceeded.
DCIT Vs Revanth Challagalla (ITAT Hyderabad) Section 54F Allowed Even When Property Purchased in Sister’s Name – Subsequent Gift Validates Claim In this case, the ITAT Hyderabad upheld the allowance of deduction under Section 54F despite the property being initially registered in the name of the assessee’s sister. The assessee, an NRI, had sold villas […]
The tribunal held that systematic sports training and self-defence instruction to students constitute education under Section 2(15). As activities were charitable and genuine, denial of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G was set aside.
The case involved exemption claim on maturity of an assigned Keyman Insurance Policy. The Tribunal held that Explanation 1 to Section 10(10D) includes assigned policies and applies retrospectively. It ruled that such receipts remain taxable despite assignment.
The issue was whether procedural delays and challan errors could deny SVLDR benefits. The Court held that substantive compliance prevails and relief cannot be denied for technical defects.
The case involved non-passing of ITC benefits after GST implementation. The Tribunal held that full ITC gains must be passed on and ordered refund with interest.
The issue included verification of ITC benefit among buyers. The Tribunal relied on DGAP findings and the builder’s acceptance to confirm liability. The ruling underscores the evidentiary role of buyer confirmations.
