The Madras High Court held that a supplier claiming GST exemption must prove that water was supplied through tankers and not as packaged drinking water. The assessment order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The Telangana High Court held that an assessment order dated 02.09.2024 for FY 2019-20 was time-barred because the statutory deadline expired on 31.08.2024. The Court ruled that limitation affects jurisdiction and set aside both the assessment and appellate orders.
ITAT Delhi sustained a Section 69A addition on demonetisation-period cash deposits after finding 539 identical cash sale vouchers lacked credibility. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily establish the genuineness of the sales and deposits.
The ITAT Mumbai restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee had not explained the source of investments in deposits and foreign currency purchases. Fresh adjudication was directed after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Delhi held that a concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where the addition is based on estimation of gross profit. The penalty was accordingly deleted.
The Authority ruled that the product did not qualify as a separate chemically defined compound due to variable composition and fluctuating molecular characteristics, making Chapter 29 inapplicable.
The Authority ruled that the addition of calcium phosphate and the product’s intended use in food and beverage enrichment made it a protein-based preparation under Heading 2106 rather than an isolated soy protein under Heading 3504.
The Delhi ITAT upheld the addition of deemed house property income after finding that the assessee failed to support his claims with evidence. The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s factual findings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had incorrectly applied the principle relating to assessments of non-existent entities without examining the factual circumstances of the firm’s conversion into a proprietorship. The matter was remanded for further inquiry.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding no evidence that cash rent payments exceeded ₹10,000 on any single day. The ruling underscores that Section 40A(3) cannot be invoked without establishing an actual breach of the prescribed limit.
