The tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when sufficient recorded cash receipts exist. Once books support availability, Section 68 additions fail.
ITAT Pune rules that delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural lapse and cannot deny Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90; directs AO to grant ₹2.74 lakh FTC after verification, upholding substantive relief despite delay.
ITAT Mumbai deletes ₹27.40 lakh addition under Section 69A, holding cash deposits as genuine business advances for car bookings, duly supported by confirmations, PAN, and invoices; non-response of customers cannot justify addition without proper verification.
The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verification. The absence of direct linkage and corroboration led to deletion of additions.
ITAT Hyderabad quashes reassessment as Section 148 notice, though dated 31.03.2021, was actually issued on 01.04.2021; failure to follow mandatory Section 148A procedure and obtain proper approval rendered proceedings invalid.
ITAT Pune sets aside ₹11.57 lakh disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for alleged PF/ESI delay, citing conflicting Supreme Court views in Woodland vs Checkmate; matter remanded to CIT(A) for fresh factual and legal adjudication.
A criminal revisional application filed by a firm and its directors for non-payment of tax invoice dues was dismissed as a prima facie case had been made out against assessee, observing that their conduct of denying the transaction after receiving goods indicated a dishonest intention from the inception.
Composite contracts involving supply of materials could not be taxed under construction or other service categories and only the service portion was liable to tax.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes Section 69A additions in alleged penny stock case, holding that documented share transactions cannot be treated as bogus based on suspicion or general investigation reports without specific evidence against the assessee.
Madras High Court held that it is not justifiable to impose disproportionate liability under section 74 of the respective GST enactments merely because Input Tax Credit was wrongly availed/ utilized. Accordingly, writ petition partly allowed.
