The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years was invalid since the alleged escaped income, after considering bank loan evidence, was below ₹50 lakh. The notice under section 148 and final assessment were quashed as time-barred.
Arulcheyal Kainkarrya Sabha Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Chennai) The appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, arose from the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], Chennai, rejecting the assessee trust’s applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is […]
The Madras High Court remitted a GST demand matter for fresh adjudication after rectification of place of supply and dispute over tax reversal. The Court directed full pre-deposit of admitted and disputed tax before reconsideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that fair valuation loss on principal-protected debentures linked to NIFTY Index is not a contingent liability. The loss was allowed as expenditure under Section 37(1).
The High Court held that the benefit under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act prevails over Section 16(4), quashing an order rejecting ITC due to delayed return filing.
The Court held that deletion of Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B) without a saving clause renders them inapplicable to all pending cases. Refund rejections and related proceedings not finalized as on 8 October 2024 were declared lapsed.
The Madras High Court held that passing an ex parte GST assessment order without granting personal hearing was unsustainable. The matter was remanded subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
The Court held that voluntary cancellation of GST registration does not wipe out liabilities for earlier tax periods. It upheld tax and penalty imposed for 2018-19 due to non-response to notices.
The Court held that clubbing multiple tax periods in one composite show cause notice under Section 74 is illegal. All consequential orders and proceedings were set aside with liberty for fresh action.
The Tribunal held that where the AO had examined and accepted exemption on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
